DescentBB

Gooberman wrote:I am of age and would go. I believe the age group use to be 18-26, male.

it is still that age range goob.

i would go...but im already committed to CAP. i help provide to the US on our ground.

I'm not a pacifist. I'm not a war mongering person either. I dont like war...but I would answer the call. Our grandfathers and maybe some fathers had to fight in wars, how could I sit by and relax if I was called upon? I don't like the cause but if America needed it, I would be there.

AceCombat wrote: i would go...but im already committed to CAP. i help provide to the US on our ground.

Sorry, but this doesn't omit you from the draft either.

Tyranny wrote:

AceCombat wrote: i would go...but im already committed to CAP. i help provide to the US on our ground.

Sorry, but this doesn't omit you from the draft either.

Sept 13, is my 11th year....and im a Adult member now.

I was too young for Vietnam, too old for Desert Storm and none of the conflicts in between interested me, otherwise I'd have enlisted.

As far as hypothetical situations go:

If this war broke out back when I was in my late teens or twenties they wouldn't have to ask, I'd be there first in line to enlist.
If somehow today they wanted to draft 45 year old guys I'd go if called, no questions asked. However, since I now have two young daughters, I would have to really think twice about enlisting at this point in their lives if I wasn't drafted.

To be perfectly honest, I can't really say whether or not I would be able to enter into combat. On the physical level, I'm in pretty poor shape and have very flat feet, but beyond that, I don't think I have the courage to actually go into active combat. I'll be the first to admit that I'm somewhat of a coward; I may not always like it, but I am relatively timid by nature. I am 17 right now, and if drafted, I'd like to think that I could overcome my past tendencies and become an effective soldier. Still, given any choice in the matter, I do not think a military career is for me. As someone stated earlier, I think that there are some people who are predisposed for careers involving high amounts of danger, and I don't think I'm one of them. Having said that, I have the ultimate respect and admiration for those who have volunteered to put themselves in harm's way. As long as this country continues to produce people with that level of courage, I don't think a draft will be necessary.

If they instated a draft to send more fodder to Iraq I would either refuse induction or get my a*s up to canada ASAP.

F*** Bush's Pet War. Wheres Osama bin F***ing Laden?

Vader wrote:Wheres Osama bin F***ing Laden?

He's hiding from Bush's war on terror.

Vader, maybe you should consider moving to France. Sounds like you would fit right in.

If they instated a draft to send more fodder to Iraq I would either refuse induction or get my a*s up to canada ASAP.

While you use the very freedom afforded you by the blood of men who felt that freedom of speech is worth dying for.

Vader wrote:F*** Bush's Pet War. Wheres Osama bin F***ing Laden?

step back for a second.
the motivations for the wars in afghanistan and iraq are far more justified than the war in vietnam. that's the era you are getting your slogans from. while i think bush is a caulkpiece, our country lost the world trade centers in a brutal attack on civilians. the vietnamese never touched our soil.

It is not about what is going on right now... Its if they pull the draft they REALLY need you. IE Russia forgets they are cool or some other far fetched idea.

To me is boils down to if your counrty who truley needs you would you go?

Being a girl, I don't think I can get drafted, but I am 21, so the right age. In the very hypothetical situation that I was drafted, and in the unlikely situation that they had me actually do fighting (instead of, for example, proving mathematical theorems about cryptography), I'd serve with pride. I wouldn't voluntarily join the military--it isn't for me. But if I had to, I'd be thrilled to participate in what's going on in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Drak, both men and women would get drafted.

Couver_ wrote:Even with battles going on in two different countries we still are getting budget cut backs.

The military? The U.S. military budget is pretty large as it is.

It just makes me sad when the country who gave you everything calls on you to pay a little back and you refuse.

The services provided by the society are generally funded by tax money, so if you pay your taxes, you're paying for the services. Those services include safety/security (including the military), but it's not the only one, so even though just money and material resources (acquired through taxation) aren't enough (people are also needed), saying that one needs to go to the military in order to 'give something back to his country' (to which one is already providing material resources) would be quite simplified, as there are other ways of providing support as well.

"I have the ultimate respect and admiration for those who have volunteered to put themselves in harm's way."

Funny Top Gun, correct me if I'm wrong, but you are one of the gung-ho war republicans on the board. Sorry, but can I get a "Hypocritical wussy!"

I think a good test for asking others to go to war is: Would you go yourself?
Perhaps there are better tests, but if I wouldn't go, I can't ask the guy sitting next to me and tell him 'it's a really good idea for the country'


"While you use the very freedom afforded you by the blood of men who felt that freedom of speech is worth dying for."

I would agree if we were talking about wwII. I personally see no way in which Iraq threatened my freedom of speech or safety. Therefore I do not feel as if I am insulting my Grandfather, who fought in WWII.

"To me is boils down to if your counrty who truley needs you would you go?"

Couver I have great respect for you but this thread asked a different question - Would you go to Iraq? I don't think my country truly needs me. I don't think my country was even threatened at all in this war we wage, no more than many other countries with dictators.

I consider myself a pacifist, but I know I have conflicting instincts deep down. I don't believe in war, but I bet if my wife and children were suddenly being threatened, I think I would probably have enough and break from my position. I haven't gotten this inkling from Iraq.

" It just makes me sad when the country who gave you everything calls on you to pay a little back and you refuse"

It just doesn't feel like the same country that asked my Grandfather to go to war. I feel disgust for all the politicians in main office, I feel no threat from the enemy I would be called against. At this point I feel the opposite you do - some crazy ass mofos have taken office and have blown up the idea of an 'imminent threat,' waved the flag and called for undying patriotic support.

Couver, if you thought of a war you disagreed with, would you still go to war just because you owed it to your country? Even if a hitler rises to power? I know there is quite a difference between bush and hitler obviously, but perhaps the wide analogy can help you see my view. I feel sickened that Bush is calling upon many of the old american ideals that used to mean something in days where the war seriously threatened us for a cause that does not. We can't just blindly support our country because of what it gave us in the past. We have to look at what we are doing now and in the moment, and actively think. Blind patriotism is a dangerous weapon for politicians to wield.

Delkian wrote:The services provided by the society are generally funded by tax money, so if you pay your taxes, you're paying for the services. Those services include safety/security (including the military), but it's not the only one, so even though just money and material resources (acquired through taxation) aren't enough (people are also needed), saying that one needs to go to the military in order to 'give something back to his country' (to which one is already providing material resources) would be quite simplified, as there are other ways of providing support as well.

Well said I guess I came off that way. I should have thought out my answer more. Without the supports of the US tax payers builders everything else there would be no troops..

Ferno wrote:Drak, both men and women would get drafted.

Nice try, but no. US Law allows for a draft of only men. See http://www.sss.gov/FSwomen.htm for proof.

"Couver I have great respect for you but this thread asked a different question - Would you go to Iraq? I don't think my country truly needs me. I don't think my country was even threatened at all in this war we wage, no more than many other countries with dictators."

I see your point Birds and respect your views. I just feel we need to finish what we started there. We owe it to those who gave their lives over there to at least get that done. That being said I can't wait till (June 30th?) when we give the whole mess back over to their leadership. I wish we could pull everyone out right now except to do that we might have to go back and fight whatever leader crawls into power...

"Couver, if you thought of a war you disagreed with, would you still go to war just because you owed it to your country? Even if a hitler rises to power? I know there is quite a difference between bush and hitler obviously, but perhaps the wide analogy can help you see my view. I feel sickened that Bush is calling upon many of the old american ideals that used to mean something in days where the war seriously threatened us for a cause that does not. We can't just blindly support our country because of what it gave us in the past. We have to look at what we are doing now and in the moment, and actively think. Blind patriotism is a dangerous weapon for politicians to wield."

Trust me Birds we have kicked that around in every squadron I have ever been in. Whats a lawfull order and how far would you go if given an order thats not morally right etc etc. Its hard to come up with an answer. We are duty bound to answer whatever call is placed on us. Yet if I was given a gun and told to shoot innocent civilians I would not. Even if it means getting shot myself. We actually have classes on what makes up a lawfull order and how to refuse one if one is given.

I respect the view that we should not be in Iraq and if enough people feel that way then Bush will not serve another term in office. Thats where we rely on the Public and Voters to change the policy if they don't like the ones being set now. I was not trying to throw stones in this thread at all. I think its a very good question and have enjoyed this thread a ton.

My views are just a little set to the right cause of the job I do. They are mine and I am entitled to them just like yall have yours and are entitled to voice them

On a good note ole Rumsfield says there is no need for a draft In fact I know the Navy is cutting back people and ships even in the midst of whats going on. We are figuring out how to do things better with less people.

yeah, that is interesting.

perhaps any future "draft" would be more along the lines of robotics scholorships, AI design, and mandatory work in an army assembly line

Couver,

Thank you for the cool headed and intelligent response. I do not want to seem critical of our armed forces as a whole. When I really think about men leaving their families and the reasons they are going, shivers run down me and the hair on my neck stands. I am proud of that conviction and action on your part. It is truly impressive. It pisses me off that much more than politicans will take this selfless nature and twist into unneccessary wars.

I know there is no serious talk of the draft, but hey if you believe rumsfeld in general, I have a $100 bill to sell you for $5!

"That being said I can't wait till (June 30th?) when we give the whole mess back over to their leadership"

I think this deadline is going to be much like when Bush declared the war in Iraq over. It hasn't ended, and isn't ending any time soon. We may transfer leadership, but I doubt it will be in a greatly substanitive way. Please feel free to correct me, however.


I believe there is one point of disagreement to discuss:
"I respect the view that we should not be in Iraq and if enough people feel that way then Bush will not serve another term in office."

That is not necessarily a true statement. The other major candidate, John Kerry, voted for the war in Iraq. Voting for Bush or Kerry seemingly makes no issue with whether you were for or against the war. The dems wanted it that way I think, because it would have been too easy for Bush to pull the knee-jerk patriotism card.

"I believe there is one point of disagreement to discuss:
"I respect the view that we should not be in Iraq and if enough people feel that way then Bush will not serve another term in office."

That is not necessarily a true statement. The other major candidate, John Kerry, voted for the war in Iraq. Voting for Bush or Kerry seemingly makes no issue with whether you were for or against the war. The dems wanted it that way I think, because it would have been too easy for Bush to pull the knee-jerk patriotism card."


Very true Sir...
I was just trying to make a general point that if the people don't like the current leadership then its on them to get to the polls and change that. No matter if its the Republicans or the Democrats in office.

As for this current mud throw (or is that sand?) I think the campaign will turn into how to best get us out more then how we got in it.

Birds, I think your view of what's occurring in Iraq is intentionally myopic. Like many anti-war folks, the picture remains small and is often restricted to debates over whether Iraq constituted a threat. That's actaully a much smaller issue to what I see as we're trying to accomplish in Iraq.

I try to see the bigger picture of what Iraq signifies to future American generations. In a nutshell, that area of the world exists in a 12th Century nightmare it hasn't been able to wake itself from. As such, in an effort to hide it's lack of any modern cultural or technological contribution to humanity, it hides it's head in one of the oldest *my dad can beat up your dad* arguments; namely that their God has dictated that they are supposed to remain frozen in the 12th Century and it is our *sin* to have progressed beyond that. And therefore we must be destroyed for raising the bar.

It really is an amazing cultural psychosis that exists that can build such a house of cards and manage to keep it standing. Anyway, the upshot is they are not trying to catch up, they are hatching schemes to tear us down and they educate their children solely from the Koran/Quran in preparation for the *Holy War*. That's not going to go away. It's just going to continue to build and express itself in violence against the West unless we can bypass the dictators/theocrats and provide hope, encouragement and enlightenment to the masses.

The only way to do that is to empower them through democracy in the hope that true leaders will arise. Iraq is certainly only the first stop. The overarching plan, however, is that it will create it's own internal momentum and function as a domino effect. There are many powerless secular groups of intellectuals and students that need our support to build momentum. Whoever is elected (Bush, Kerry, Nader) cannot walk away from the work we've done so far. The cancer that is Islamic extremism has to be removed.

The West--and America in particular--will continue to be threatened (they have declared war on us, in case that has slipped your memory) until the Arabs/Islamics themselves concede that much of the fault for their own cultural arrested development has been fostered by this false dream of an Islamic World based on Sharia Law, and that it needs to be replaced by tolerance and a desire for cooperation with the outside world.

In isolation, you can make a case that Iraq/Saddam was no obvious threat and war was waged on questionable pretense. Personally, I believed enough evidence existed and enough resolutions passed to warrant this first step toward reshaping the future of the Middle East. It's in our interests to stop the despair, humilation and Islamic brainwashing pervasive among the Arabs. They may not like it initially because it will add humiliation, but the farsighted Arab knows that if his culture is to continue to exist it needs to become a vital and contributing component within the new global culture and global economy that is emerging. It will have to modernize and liberalize or it will die. The era of the holy war is over and the world at large will never turn back the clock.

Bottom line is it is ignorant to view this clash of cultures as *Bush's War* and to be short-shighted as to what we're trying to accomplish. This war isn't going away June 30th. It will likely last as long as the Cold War did. It's not going to be an easy task coaxing an entire culture into the 22nd Century. It's going to be very difficult (read: bloody) but it has to be done because modern weaponry dictates that we can no longer ignore Arab fanaticism and leave them to fight among themselves. They can reach us now with devastating modern weapons, and we make an attractive unifying enemy to those that would keep them looking elsewhere for face-saving rationalizations why they are still in the Dark Ages at a time when we're progressively opening new frontiers in space, science, medicine, communications, etc. everyday.

I've posted my reply in a new thread, so as not to hijack this one, Bash.
Let's keep this one to the Draft, anyone replying to bash, jump in my new Modernization thread.

Birdseye, thank you for resorting to name-calling. I could just as easily call you an ultraliberal wussy peacenik, but I choose not to, because I don't think of you in that respect .

Just because I feel that I might not be able to function in a combat situation does not relinquish my right to support our country's military action in Iraq. That would be like saying that anyone deferred from the draft in WWII had no right to support American troops. While Iraq may not have posed as immediate a threat as Hitler did, I truly believe that Saddam was a very dangerous individual to leave in power, and I fully support the Iraq invasion on this basis. The men and women serving in Iraq volunteered their service, fully aware that there was a very real chance that they might be injured or killed. This is more than I could ever do, and these people have earned every ounce of respect I can get. I can tell you this: if there came to pass such a dire situation that a military draft was necessary to protect my country, I would be willing to give up my life. If a draft becomes necessary for Iraq, I would like to believe that I would be willing to go there; however, because I have never confronted this situation, I cannot give you an honest answer at this time.

Please don't accuse anyone supporting the Iraq war of sending others to their deaths in order to fulfill a personal wish. I deeply regret every casualty in Iraq, and I pray that the day will come when we can remove our fellow citizens from this situation, leaving behind a stable and prosperous country. As I said before, if my country needed me, I like to think that I'd be willing and ready to accept the call.

I don't normally resort to 'name calling' but in this case it's not really name calling in the out-of-left field sense.

You support the war in Iraq, but would not go yourself. That's hypocritical, however you slice or dice it. Maybe I could have left out 'wussy', but that's really what it comes down to -- you support a war but are too wussy to fight yourself. You think your neighbor should go, but not you.

Strangely, you contradicted yourself now by saying you'd die for your country. Then you go on to say you can't give me an honest answer. I'm not really sure what you mean. Maybe you should join the Kerry for election campaign

Perhaps until you can honestly answer that question, you shouldn't ask others to put their life on the line.

"Couver I have great respect for you but this thread asked a different question - Would you go to Iraq? I don't think my country truly needs me. I don't think my country was even threatened at all in this war we wage, no more than many other countries with dictators." Birdseye

Birdy, we are in a new kind of World War. From both conservative and liberal news sources there seems to be one underlying premis...Islamic fundamentalist want to kill us. All of us. Even fellow muslims that may just be in the way. Jordan is a prime example. The terrorist would have killed 80,000 muslim just to knock out one of our embassy's. The leader of the band of merry murderer's was trained where? Iraq.
80,000...roll that number around your head. Kinda like the number of jews that went into some of the ovens way back when.
As Bash said, don't view this war thru 60 year old bi-focals. There is a well organised, well funded group of people that want you dead. Problem is they are not standing out in plain sight. Their army has no uniform. They are masters of the predatory ambush and have patience in abundance. Their life is filled with one goal...to kill you and everyone who posts on this board. They want to kill women and children and even your pet dog if it will further their goals. And Iraq was part of that. Oh, you may not find piles of evidence, but listen close and you will see bits and pieces of how Iraq was part of the plan. Jordan showed us a piece of the puzzle.

So Bird, when you talk about dictators in general you are right. Just be able to winnow out the dangerous one from the crackpots. With Afganistan out of the way, Irag was the next terrorist stronghold. Don't let your pacifist beliefs cloud your vision.

"80,000...roll that number around your head. Kinda like the number of jews "

Actually, you are off by a magnitude of about 100.

I am not saying, don't go after the terrorists. I am saying that conquering all of the middle east isn't the most tactful or best policy to go with. I'd prefer we move in with a scalpel to remove specific parties, rather than risk causing WWIII.

Why aren't we going after Saudi Arabia then? From what I can tell they have way more ties to terrorism, and funding terrorism, than Iraq had.

I just really feel like our attempts to 'modernize' the middle east may backfire on us someday, in the exact way you guys are trying to prevent. We have to be VERY careful not to piss the muslim population as a whole off when we go after fundamentalists.

Nope, 80,000 was the expected casueltys based on the four truckloads of chemicals that were to be blown.

As to the scalpel, isn't that what we are using in Iraq?

I could just as easily call you an ultraliberal wussy peacenik

Just to place myself in the line of fire...

I have actually been really surprised in this thread the amount of people on the left who have said, "Yes I would go."

Compared to the amount of people on the right that have said, "Yes, but...(not of age, military wouldnt want me, out of shape, etc)", or "No."

I wrongly expected this to be almost completely polarized.

Birdseye wrote:...Why aren't we going after Saudi Arabia then? From what I can tell they have way more ties to terrorism, and funding terrorism, than Iraq had...

Here's a guess, first some background:

Saudi Arabia-
Population upward of 20 million, most of them dirt poor plus another 5 million foriegn workers, most of them from even poorer, predominantly islamic countries.

The Royal family-
Much less than 1% of the population. They are holding on to power by sheer brutal force and the tradition of centuries of tribal warfare that has left them in power...for now.

They hold power by virtue of the populations respect for the tradition of how a leader is empowered combined with the fractured nature of a population well divided by a class system, not their ability to physically hold on to it.
They are a very small group with a tenuous grip on the reins of power.


In polls just after Sept. 11 2001 a very large majority of the population said they admire bin Laddin and consider him to be a heroic leader in exile.
If Ossama bin Laddin were to return and be left alone for a short time he could easily overthrow the Royal family and take control of Saudi Arabia. It would be a relatively quick coup not even a war. That's why his family banished him and pays him to stay out. That is why they walk both sides of the fence when it comes to our interests.
Personally I expect to see bin Laddin show up there soon and try to take over.

Saudi Arabia is, in my opinion, ten times more dangerous than Iraq could be for american troops and ten times less likely to produce the intended long term results.

So the answer is:

We don't dare invade such a fundamentalist hotbed because taking the country is easy, what to do with it after is the problem.
We would be in the very situation the leftists portray Iraq as now...a Vietnam, a quagmire, an occupation with no end in sight!

The answer to "Why not Saudi Arabia" is perhaps best answered by "Why Iraq instead"

Iraq was considered the biggest military might.
Strength is everything to these people and walking right up to the biggest bully in the middle east and taking him out is much more impressive than overthrowing a tribal leader and his tent full of cousins.

More important, Iraq is a country full of a self sufficient people, they have the potential and the resources, the oil, the fertile ground, etc.
They are the heart of the modern arab world. They have the foundation in place, banking, medicine, education, science, culture, a free market, etc.

Iraq is the only place to plant the seed of democracy where it may flourish tended only by the locals. After we do some serious weed control that is.

They are a secular nation, at least as much as is possible in the middle east. Obviously some of Saddams murderous tactics kept the different religious factions at bay and now they rush to fill the vacuum with the help of some Islamikazi's from Syria, Iran and other 'Oh so helpful' nations. We created the vacuum and it is in that area we were not prepared to deal with it, but we must adapt and overcome. We will prevail, ultimately, but I think it will be ugly.

That is the problem we face, and in Saudi Arabia it would be at least ten times worse. And with no chance at creating the beginning-of-the-end of 12th century despots in charge of 30% of the worlds oil supply and a 21st century arsenal.

That's why, 'not Saudi Arabia'.

Birdseye wrote:I don't normally resort to 'name calling' but in this case it's not really name calling in the out-of-left field sense.

You support the war in Iraq, but would not go yourself. That's hypocritical, however you slice or dice it. Maybe I could have left out 'wussy', but that's really what it comes down to -- you support a war but are too wussy to fight yourself. You think your neighbor should go, but not you.

Strangely, you contradicted yourself now by saying you'd die for your country. Then you go on to say you can't give me an honest answer. I'm not really sure what you mean. Maybe you should join the Kerry for election campaign

Perhaps until you can honestly answer that question, you shouldn't ask others to put their life on the line.

Birdseye, I never said that I would not go to Iraq if drafted. What I said was that I would not voluntarily enter military service, because I do not see myself as someone who is physically, mentally, or emotionally able to handle combat situations. Also, if I was drafted to enter Iraq, I would probably not be "willing," but I would go, not only because it is the only legal option, but also because selective service is one of my responsibilities as a US citizen. With regards to my "honest answer" line, I meant that I have never really thought about the possibility of being drafted. I have not done any soul-searching as to what my opinions would be, and I am unlikely to discover these feelings unless I am actually drafted.

Also, I am not asking anyone else to put their lives on the line. The men and women in our armed forces volunteered for the job, knowing full well the danger associated with it. I am no more "forcing" them to go into harm's way than you are. I do believe the action in Iraq is worthwhile, and I am very happy that our great military forces are the ones fighting over there, but all the same, I still see it as tragic whenever someone loses their life over there. As has been said many times before, war is hell; it's never a good option, but it is sometimes the only feasible option. No one asked our soldiers to die in Iraq; rather, they were killed in the line of duty, doing their jobs.

And please, never make a reference to me being in Kerry's campaign. That's way below the belt .

"Saudi Arabia is, in my opinion, ten times more dangerous than Iraq could be for american troops and ten times less likely to produce the intended long term results. "

Maybe you could substantiate that a little more? Maybe not the danger part, but the intended results. If it is as you say, aren't you more scared of Osama running Saudi Arabia than Saddam in Iraq? My god! That would be hundreds times as bad for us.

Not that I'm advocating invading saudi arabia -- I'm more just inquisitive. Thank you for your post.

Top: The question was if drafted for Iraq, would you go. In that situation, your neighbor would be going (not a volunteer) and you're for the war, but you said you wouldn't go. That's what was confusing. You can change your position later

Birdseye wrote:Maybe you could substantiate that a little more? Maybe not the danger part, but the intended results. If it is as you say, aren't you more scared of Osama running Saudi Arabia than Saddam in Iraq? My god! That would be hundreds times as bad for us.

The results I hope we seek are injecting some form of secular democracy with a U.S. friendly administration in Iraq. It becomes prosperous and a model for other neighboring countries.
We maintain a military presence in Iraq, relatively free from terrorist sniping because the 'New Iraqi's' hunt and kill them.
Iran's religious leaders lose power due to pressures from within...plenty of CIA help from our new staging grounds in Iraq.
Syria is invaded, Hezbollah destroyed...

Russia, South America and the new Iraq supply enough cheap oil to not need Saudi Arabia anymore so they can be cut off if need be.

Then bin Laddin, outraged at the succes of U.S. efforts trys to make a big move like returning to Saudi Arabia and we finish him off there, not by invasion and occupation but by using air power and special op's to pick his people apart.

If the Royal family were to fall their desire to regain power would provide local intel on bin Laddins movements. Let them eat sand and drink crude oil while we park the navy and airforce all around them without the oil business Saudi Arabia is hell on earth. just where bin Laddin belongs.

However, if we pack it up and leave Iraq to the U.N. like John Kerry would have us do then I see bin Laddin returning to Saudi Arabia as doomsday.
But with the above scenario of the U.S. keeping a heavy hand in the region I have hope that a bin Laddin return would be his last move.

Realistically I don't see more than half of all that happening...

Actually Birds, I thought Will's post was extremely straight forward, informative and right on the money when it comes to the reasons why Iraq is a better country to start planting the roots of democracy.

His point was Saudi Arabia would actually be what you and others are making the situation in Iraq seem like. A no win situation on the road to WWIII.

I really don't buy the WWIII talk anyways. We aren't dealing with highly mechanized and militarized nations here with brutal strength either on land, sea or air like Germany, Japan & Italy were. We're dealing with people who strap TNT or grenades to their chests and use the surrounding environment to further the damage when they finally detonate.

Every now and then they end up doing something that tallies up a high body count. This last time they got our attention and don't think for one second that just because Iraq had nothing to do with it that makes them any less responsible for the things that they and other countries in the middle east let stir up in their own backyards.

How many times must I keep repeating "Iraq was a target of opportunity. Nothing more, nothing less". Is this really so hard to understand? Not only have we removed a potential threat to the US in the future (SMALL POINT) but we have removed a HUGE possible threat to other middle eastern countries in general (BIG PICTURE).

Now, as bash and others have said, by trying to institute a democracy in the heart of the middle east we MAY have a chance to squelch the breeding of hatred these extremists aid in festering in a region that gave birth to all kinds of teachings that advocate peace.

When it comes down to it Iraq is by far the EASIEST country to attempt to do this in over there. If we fail this will not lead to a WWIII scenario but of course we look bad in the long run and Iraq ends up like it was before this even started anyways.

If we succeed who knows the possibilites that could open up for the development of that region in the future. The possible ascension of the middle east into the modern era might not happen in our lifetimes if we succeed, remember that. It will be a very slow and sometimes very painful process and I do sincerely believe that future generations will benefit from the lives lost today. Americans and Middle Easterners alike.

We all know this wasn't the reason for going in there in the first place. Some of you guys need to get over that and move on to the next step. This next step being a hopefully successful "fertilization" of democracy in a hotbed of hostilities

Just a quick point:

I don't get the logic that says "if you're not willing to go fight, but you think the war is a good idea, you're a hypocrite." (Such name-calling is unnecessary.) I'm not willing to be a policeman, but I think for the protection of the nation's citizens, law enforcement is a good idea. I'm not willing to be a physicist, but I think for the sake of knowledge, having physicists around is a good idea, and certain studies are a good idea. I'm not willing to be a lawyer or a judge, but I think for the sake of the nation's laws, having legal experts and authorities around to bring certain lawsuits and make certain judgements is a good idea. And I'm not willing to be a soldier, but I think having an army is a good idea, and that for the sake of the nation's security, certain wars are a good idea. Whether or not I'd participate, and whether or not these things are a good idea from my personal perspective, I think it's a good idea from the national perspective to have each of these groups and for each of them to act sometimes, based on the reality of the world we live in.

In an ideal world, we wouldn't need armies, police, or judges (physicists would still be good to have.) But we don't live in an ideal world -- and in the messed up world we live in, armies, police, and judges are all good things for most nations to have. Whether or not any of us would personally be involved in any of these forces, they're good for the nation.

Now, of course, it still remains to be determined whether or not the Iraq war is, itself, a good idea for this nation to be involved in (either starting it, or finishing it.) One side argues that it will only make Iraqis and others hate us more because we're in their neighborhood shooting at stuff and conquering their nation, while the other side argues it will make Iraqis and others love us because we give them hope to live in a stable nation where they have significant freedoms and power to vote. One side argues that it will raise the level of overall terrorism in the world by ticking people off, while the other argues it will lower the level of terrorism in the world by creating fewer places for terrorists to be recruited and trained. Both sides have their arguments, and both sides have their examples and stories, and neither side will convince the other until 10 or 20 years down the road when Iraq is either the next post-WWI Germany or the next post-WWII Germany.

There's a difference between working out some physics problems and putting your life on the line.

... and putting your life on the line in the army is not much different from doing so as a police officer.

My point still stands: I can think many things are a "good idea" that I'm not willing to be a part of, without being a hypocrite. The fact that some of the things I think (or can think) are a good idea are *dangerous* has very little bearing on anything.

Lothar wrote:I don't get the logic that says "if you're not willing to go fight, but you think the war is a good idea, you're a hypocrite."

People choose to be police officers and people choose to be physicists. But if you are in the reserve forces or in the Army, you don't have that choice. Given the choice between saying home with the wife and the newborn, or going to Iraq, how many would actually choose Iraq? The decision is made for them.

I still think it's morally hypocritical and I doubt you'll convince me otherwise. To me, it's no different than voting to raise taxes on everyone, but then refusing to pay them when the taxman comes knocking on your door. "But you voted for higher taxes." "Well yeah, but I didn't expect that I'd have to pay them!"

Alas, I guess I'll just agree to disagree.