Should the pro-war supporters have to send their first born child to Iraq to help with W's troop surge?

Question

Seriously, I think they should put up or shut up. If they back the war, why don't they support the troops and send their own kids over there so the hard-working men and women who have already served an extended duty can come home? If they're not willing to sacrifice their own children's lives or their own butt for this war, then what right do they have to continue risking others? Or do they just enjoy draining the government coffers, sending young people to an early death, overextending the army, and making America look like a bunch of incompetent, hypocritical idiots?

Does anyone know of a place online where the neocons can sign up for duty?

To farkass419: Really? I didn't realize the Bush twins were already over there. And of course I understand it's a volunteer army. Let me explain this a little more slowly for you..."Why don't the neocons VOLUNTEER to serve in Iraq?" Is that better? And don't tell me there aren't any pro-war supporters. You can play with semantics all you like, but if you think this war is a good thing that needs to continue, then you're pro-war.

Let me put this a little more plainly and in larger print for those who are apparently incapable of reading normal print and who insist upon whining about technicalities ("It's a volunteer army! D'oh!") rather than responding to the basic question at hand:

HAS ANYONE READ OR SEEN ANY NEWS REPORTS lLATELY ABOUT A RECENT UPSURGE IN MILITARY ENROLLMENT AMONG IRAQI-WAR SUPPORTERS LATELY?

No? I didn't think so.

If they can't "influence" their children to volunteer, perhaps they should enlist themselves.

To Pat from Ohio: Even if I agreed that "there is a certain group of people who want to end our way of life and do not care if it kills them to take us and the western democracies down," (which I think is a naive oversimplification of Middle Eastern politics), no one has demonstrated that this war can in any way keep them from doing so. In fact, it appears to be quite the opposite: this war has led to increased antagonism towards America and increased violence in the region. And the last time I checked, we invaded another sovereign nation, not the other way around. Or do you buy the revisionist history Bush and his cronies have provided on that? If so, you are in deep denial.

Answer 1

Ever notice that if you disagree with a pro-war republican, they will call you a whiney liberal, or hippie? Is that for lack of a snappy comeback or what? However, to your question, I think that if members of congress, the senate, and even the president himself had children that were of draft age, and we even had a draft, they wouldn't be so quick to jump into a war with bad intelligence.
Oh and contrary to other comments on here, there are people who are pro-war, they are war mongers like Cheney. But then again, Cheney is too much of a coward to fight the war, he just believes in it.

Answer 2

Your critiques, i'm afraid, would get hit annoying from the liberal view factors. this is totally confusing to communicate everybody who has already thrown interior the towel and known defeat as a potential option. i individually trust you, i think of we would desire to constantly the two combat this war or get the hell out (with the real possibility of in simple terms having to return later to confront a extra robust prepared, emboldened and larger geared up enemy). i does not be unfavorable to sending not 50,000 troops, yet fairly 500,000 troops - and at that element, i'm particularly specific the Islamic radicals could get the message. Given the terrorists' historic past, i won't help yet think of that in the event that they gain any variety of perceived victory in Iraq, they're going to proceed their strategies on their march to extra their ideology of hatred and domination. there's no reason what so ever to think of that they're going to abandon their strategies of terror and indiscriminate homicide in the event that they are useful. i've got faith we've yet 2 techniques: defeat those terrorists or settle for their demands. Given the historic past of attempting international kinfolk and its dismal checklist of achievement and the recent occasion of the Pakistani failure to barter a non violent end to the the Mosque takeover with the aid of Islamic militants - i actually do not elect to hearken to anymore approximately how we would desire to constantly be chatting with those demented psychos.

Answer 3

I've served. My father, grandfather, brothers, and my youngest daughter have all served.
It's time for a conscripted armed forces. We all get to enjoy the benefits of our freedom, every able-bodied American should do their part to ensure it continues.

BTW: the vast majority of those who serve in Iraq don't get killed. We lost a way higher percentage of troops in WW2 and Vietnam

The way you use the tem "they", I figure you are a weak kneed coward pretending to be a patriot. You shame us all.

How about I explain to you v e r y s l o w l y so you understand.
Although war is a terrible waste of human lives and energy, there is a certain group of people who want to end our way of life and do not care if it kills them to take us and the western democracies down.

Additional details: Yes, purposely oversimplified. Naive, no. There are extremist muslim groups who have flatly stated that their intention is to wipe zionism and christianity from the globe, When you mix theocracy with radical ideology that's a recipe for war and that's how the political game is played in the mideast.
Also no, Bush did not invade a sovereign nation, the UN had the backbone to to follow up on their actions necessary to bring a geonocidal tyrant to justice in a region with power-hungry warlords already hostile to America. Perhaps we should leave the ingrates to fend for themselves.
The surge in troops is designed to use overwhelming force to subdue the insurgents but it may be a case of too little, too late anyway.
So what's the liberal plan, withdraw all combat troops worldwide and only defend from within our borders?
Super-bad idea. When WW3 breaks out because Israeal and Europe will have no other means of defense short the use of nuclear weapons against radicals since the country with the most powerful military machine ever amassed has forsaken the rest of the world.

Answer 4

you make a valid point, except for one thing. the army is voluntary, there is no draft so the people who are in it and serving choose to be there. I have a friend who is in the marines, and he says he love what he does.

Either way, instead of complaining of the outcome of the war, lets support those who are still in the middle of it

Answer 5

Do you know how many times this question has been asked?
First of all, NO ONE, and I repeat, NO ONE is "pro-war."
Secondly, many of those you call "neocons" have already served or ARE serving!
Thirdly, we have a VOLUNTEER military. NO ONE "sends" anyone to war, or to join the military.

I'm not even bothering with the rest of your question. It clearly reflects your own ignorance.

Edit: Even those who are "for" the war don't think it's a "good" thing. I know people who are what you would call "pro-war," and they don't think it's a "good" thing.
There is no such thing as a "good" war!
"What's so civil about war anyway?"
NOTHING.
But sometimes it's necessary. Forgive me if I quote this wrong:
Te volo pax pacis, instruo nam pugna.
You want peace, prepare for battle.

So your initial question is, "Why don't neocons volunteer for the military?" Okay, here's why:
1. They may have already served, and are now struggling with health issues so they can't serve again.
OR
2. They may have been prevented from serving in the first place because of health issues.
OR
3. They are already serving.
OR
4. Like me, they aren't pro-war (or anti), aren't really a "neocon"(I don't even really know what that is. I'm a proud CONSERVATIVE), but they're MARRIED to someone in the military. It's hard enough making a marriage with ONE spouse in the service. It's nearly impossible with both.

Answer 6

Your question makes no sense.

-You can't join the forces till you're 18, so parents would no longer be able to "send" their "child" to a foreign war.
-When someone turnes 18, they make their own decisions as an adult.
-Joining the service is a volunteer action. No one is there that didn't sign up on their own, and no one can be forced into it (not even by their mommy and daddy lol)
-When someone joins up, they throw their own thoughts aside to "serve" the US government's needs. That's the whole point. SERVICE. Look it up.

Boy, Liberals are dumb.

SUPPORT OUR TROOPS!

zv

Answer 7

No. We have an all volunteer military the last time I checked. Thank God we still have some people in our nation willing to defend our institutions and citizens.

Answer 8

Last time I checked, you needed to be 18 to sign up.....and that's an adult, not a child.....or are you refering to the fact that everyone is someone's child, even if they are 60 years old.....so I should ask you do you support removing the rights of adult age children to chose for themselves?

Answer 9

Ridiculous. First we will have your mother and Father sign you up for all the things you are not doing. Oh yeah you wouldn't like that. And what if the kid is against the war?

Answer 10

Yes that would be a good start, as far as many neo cons serving...name one! Bush, Cheyney, Wolfowitz...et. al never served a day. And being a druken pilot failure who did not honor his commitment doesnt count.