if mine is as made up as yours and others, then you have no intention of seeing the other viewpoint, too, right?
I thought I made that clear. Maybe you aren't being intentionally obtuse. Maybe you just really need things spelled out for you. No, you arent going to change my mind. But, I am interested in other people's viewpoints. Just not yours.
Well...who the fuck are you to judge someones decision to support a war but not actively partcipate in it? They are the ones who have to live with it, not you.
Lets say we run out of troops.. would you be willing to fight to keep the thing going?
Yes or no answer. Not wether you support it or not.
You can obviously support something without participating, the REAL question here is, if you had no other choice but to fight, would you sacrifice yourself for the cause?
Well...who the fuck are you to judge someones decision to support a war but not actively partcipate in it? They are the ones who have to live with it, not you.
Wouldn't that be considered cowardly also?
1/12/1879, 4/8/1156, 2/6/1977, who gives a shit, ...
I thought I made that clear. Maybe you aren't being intentionally obtuse. Maybe you just really need things spelled out for you. No, you arent going to change my mind. But, I am interested in other people's viewpoints. Just not yours.
then why keep quoting me?
i never said i would or tried to change your mind, just asking you to back up what you were saying, and i see that got to be too much :(
that's how it always goes when someone can't hang...they suddenly become disinterested in my viewpoint. don't be scared, i won't bite
btw, the army doesn't give psychological tests
standin above the crowd
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
Lets say we run out of troops.. would you be willing to fight to keep the thing going?
Yes or no answer. Not wether you support it or not.
You can obviously support something without participating, the REAL question here is, if you had no other choice but to fight, would you sacrifice yourself for the cause?
Lets say we run out of troops.. would you be willing to fight to keep the thing going?
Yes or no answer. Not wether you support it or not.
You can obviously support something without participating, the REAL question here is, if you had no other choice but to fight, would you sacrifice yourself for the cause?
I want somebody who supports the war to answer my question.
Dubya calls you tomorrow. He says the war is all but lost unless YOU join and fight. 230,000 troops is not enough. They need 230,001 and you are the last able body because every other American freakishly suddenly became disabled.. You will serve a year and there's a 1.5% chance you will die in combat.
Do you fight? Yes or No?
You can support something without having the will to take part in it... I think the main point of this thread, was asking who would have the will to fight, not wether you support it. I wouldn't fight for Vietnam or Iraq, but World War 2,.. YOU BET YOUR ASS I WOULD!
I scored rather high on both the physical and mental tests. I didnt fare well in the psychological tests. Thats about all I care to share with someone who insulted me 20 minutes ago.
Fair enough. As for the insults, jeez you throw 'em at me all the time. Dont be a big baby.
War is Peace
Freedom is Slavery
Ignorance is Strength
You can support something without having the will to take part in it... I think the main point of this thread, was asking who would have the will to fight, not wether you support it. I wouldn't fight for Vietnam or Iraq, but World War 2,.. YOU BET YOUR ASS I WOULD!
It's crazy to think that at the time, a large majority of the American public were against participating in WW2. Both Presidential candidates made promises not to get involved in Europe's war (although Roosevelt badly wanted to America more involved than sneaking supplies over the ocean).
1/12/1879, 4/8/1156, 2/6/1977, who gives a shit, ...
Thats not the thinking here.. the idea, is not that you are going to stop your life to fight, but if you had the will to fight.. lets put it in terms of tax dollars so the concept is a little easier to understand. If we didn't have to pay taxes, but had to write a check out of our own pockets every week to pay for the war in Iraq, with a choice, would you keep writing that check? Do you have the will to keep the war going at its effect on you??? Its cost to you wether it be your life on the line or your bank account?
You are paying for the war. If you could opt to end it for a $500 tax rebate in exchange would you?
It's about will.
Police offiicer salaries are paid with tax dollars, and I'm sure if people were asked whether they would be willing to pay more taxes to keep people from robbing banks, their answer would be yes.
so to make your analogy stand...iraq are the robbers...? how did iraq 'rob a bank'?
Totally off topic there. This thread isn't about whether the war is justified. It's about whether or not it's an act of cowardice to support a war without wanting to be directly involved in it. The circumstances surrounding the war itself is a whole other argument.
Totally off topic there. This thread isn't about whether the war is justified. It's about whether or not it's an act of cowardice to support a war without wanting to be directly involved in it. The circumstances surrounding the war itself is a whole other argument.
you gave the swat comparison and concluded w/ "right now in iraq they are following their career paths."
i'm saying your swat analogy can't be used w/ iraq.
why are the swat being sent? b/c robbers are inside a bank.
in the case of iraq no one was ever in a bank. swat was sent b/c someone said iraq was gonna rob a bank... only to find they had no intention, they didn't even have a ride to the bank or a toy gun
or...another way they swat team busts in and finds they were just a customer waiting to deposit some money
i get your point 'it's their job', but that is nowhere does their job state harassing ppl like that. just as the military's is to DEFEND, not escalate, not secure resources or nationbuilding or cheap, disposable labor
standin above the crowd
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
you gave the swat comparison and concluded w/ "right now in iraq they are following their career paths."
i'm saying your swat analogy can't be used w/ iraq.
why are the swat being sent? b/c robbers are inside a bank.
in the case of iraq no one was ever in a bank. swat was sent b/c someone said iraq was gonna rob a bank... only to find they had no intention, they didn't even have a ride to the bank or a toy gun
or...another way they swat team busts in and finds they were just a customer waiting to deposit some money
i get your point 'it's their job', but that is nowhere does their job state harassing ppl like that. just as the military's is to DEFEND, not escalate, not secure resources or nationbuilding or cheap, disposable labor
Again, that's not the point of this thread. The point of this thread is not whether Iraq is what the government portrays it to be.
The point of this thread is simply whether someone's 15 y/o kid is a chickenhawk because he supports a war that he is not personally interested in fighting.
The logic we're faced with in this thread can apply to any war, whatever the circumstances of that war.
So, what I'm saying is that yes it is reasonable for a person to support a war without wanting to fight in it for the simple fact that soldiers engage in soldiering by choice of profession, not by personal conviction.
Again, that's not the point of this thread. The point of this thread is not whether Iraq is what the government portrays it to be.
The point of this thread is simply whether someone's 15 y/o kid is a chickenhawk because he supports a war that he is not personally interested in fighting.
The logic we're faced with in this thread can apply to any war, whatever the circumstances of that war.
So, what I'm saying is that yes it is reasonable for a person to support a war without wanting to fight in it for the simple fact that soldiers engage in soldiering by choice of profession, not by personal conviction.
you can't always apply things to every single circumstance...things aren't that black and white
standin above the crowd
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
So, what I'm saying is that yes it is reasonable for a person to support a war without wanting to fight in it for the simple fact that soldiers engage in soldiering by choice of profession, not by personal conviction.
Do you think that if that person lived in a country where service is mandatory (like Israel for example) he would be as enthousiastic about war? War is not something funny that goes on somewhere far away from home and the reasons you have to support it should be strong enough to send you fight for it (if the country needs it).
I had a debate with my 15 year old son today on this subject. He believes that in many cases war/attack is the only solution. I suggested that since he has this view than he must be willing to fight along side his fellow countrymen. He disagreed. You can believe that war is the answer and yet not be involved in it, so he says, unless it is self defense, of course.
I say if you truely believe in something you better be able to personally, physically and mentally be able to back it up.
Am I wrong..or what?
There is a crapton of gray area here. i'm not so sure it is a fair question for a 15 year old kid. Ask him again in about three years when the fucking thing is still being fought.
Also exempt from this question would be the elderly or physically incapable. Certainly they could support a military action without physically taking part.
For a simpler, more straight forward answer to your question, anyone of appropriate age and physical fitness, going on about a war they feel is justifiable, should probably be ready to lace up their boots.
Personally, i feel that war is such a serious thing, that any thing i believed justified war, would HAVE to be something i would be willing to fight for (if capable, of course), or have any of my three sons fight for.
Before anyone asks, Iraq definitely does not fall into that category.
"When all your friends and sedatives mean well but make it worse... better find yourself a place to level out."
Do you support abortion? If so, you'd better be prepared and willing to go in with a scalpel or some saline solution and go to town. I mean, if you support it, you should be required to actively participate in it, right?
It's not about supporting abortion, paper. It's about supporting choice.
Either way, I agree with the original poster, to an extent. I guess it depends on your level of support. Obviously the threshold of your son's support isn't as high as someone who would actually go to war. So he's supporting it in voice, but not in action. Still support, but not nearly as sincere.
I had a debate with my 15 year old son today on this subject. He believes that in many cases war/attack is the only solution. I suggested that since he has this view than he must be willing to fight along side his fellow countrymen. He disagreed. You can believe that war is the answer and yet not be involved in it, so he says, unless it is self defense, of course.
I say if you truely believe in something you better be able to personally, physically and mentally be able to back it up.
Am I wrong..or what?
I think you have sour grapes that your son shares a different view than you. Holding a belief and acting on that belief are two different things and the first does not require the latter.
...
I know a couple of recruiters here at work The told me that they have adjusted the physical, emotional and intelectual requirements for active service (and the also increased the maximum age requirement).
You don't have to be in peak fighting condition to provide logistical support for combat units. Sure, you will have to make it through basic training and small arms handling, but there are a awful lot of people working behind the scenes in the Middle East theater.
Are those behind the scenes personel in harm's way? Of course they are. Anytime you mount a military operation, there are hazzards involved. But, if you look at it from their view... it is less likely that you will be killed or injured doing communications work in the Green Zone, than going out on street patrol in Sadr City.
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
I had a debate with my 15 year old son today on this subject. He believes that in many cases war/attack is the only solution. I suggested that since he has this view than he must be willing to fight along side his fellow countrymen. He disagreed. You can believe that war is the answer and yet not be involved in it, so he says, unless it is self defense, of course.
I say if you truely believe in something you better be able to personally, physically and mentally be able to back it up.
Am I wrong..or what?
I believe you are wrong. I believe there's need for firemen, police officers and janitors, by your way of thinking I should do all these roles.
Let's hope you've never taken any of your family to see a doctor. Because if you really felt doctors were necessary you would have devoted and sacrificed 7-11 years of your life to learning to be one.
“One good thing about music,
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
It is stupid to think that you have to be willing to do something before you can support it.
I support deep sea research. There is no way I am going got go do it.
I support gay marriage. There is no way I am going to marry another guy.
I support a womans right to choose. I am not willing to choose for her or willing to perform the abortion if she chooses to have one.
I think people are looking at this question in the most simplistic of forms in order to ...i don't know why. I'm not picking on you, but your post kind of sums up best the argument that seems to support those who would support war, yet not be involved in the fighting of it. Which is fine. To an extent.
The original post brought the views of a 15-year-old son to his father on the matter. The father is saying to his son that, if it comes to war, if I believe it to be just, I will fight, otherwise I cannot support it. The son is saying to his father, whether or not I believe it is just, I can support it without having to fight in it.
This is about taking up arms in defense of your country. It isn't about women's health, it isn't about janitorial duities, it isn't about medicine. It's about the ultimate sacrifice in the most dangerous and risky of endevours a human can take, and being put in the postition to make that kind of totally selfless decision that could change your life forever. Or end it in a moments notice. If it is justified (where are those wolverine (Red Dawn) lovers now?), I don't see how anyone could refuse the privilege to fight and possibly die for their country.
So, I can't see the son's side of the argument. I think those of you on that side of the argument who are able-bodied and of fighting age need to know what the sacrifce really means before you can ascertain to argue that this is just another one of those decisions you make on a whimsy.
I think people are looking at this question in the most simplistic of forms in order to ...i don't know why. I'm not picking on you, but your post kind of sums up best the argument that seems to support those who would support war, yet not be involved in the fighting of it. Which is fine. To an extent.
The original post brought the views of a 15-year-old son to his father on the matter. The father is saying to his son that, if it comes to war, if I believe it to be just, I will fight, otherwise I cannot support it. The son is saying to his father, whether or not I believe it is just, I can support it without having to fight in it.
This is about taking up arms in defense of your country. It isn't about women's health, it isn't about janitorial duities, it isn't about medicine. It's about the ultimate sacrifice in the most dangerous and risky of endevours a human can take, and being put in the postition to make that kind of totally selfless decision that could change your life forever. Or end it in a moments notice. If it is justified (where are those wolverine (Red Dawn) lovers now?), I don't see how anyone could refuse the privilege to fight and possibly die for their country.
So, I can't see the son's side of the argument. I think those of you on that side of the argument who are able-bodied and of fighting age need to know what the sacrifce really means before you can ascertain to argue that this is just another one of those decisions you make on a whimsy.
to you and just a few others who understood the real question. i honestly wanted REAL feedback. i'm trying to raise my kids the best i can and it is good, i think, to get other opinions, at times.
to you and just a few others who understood the real question. i honestly wanted REAL feedback. i'm trying to raise my kids the best i can and it is good, i think, to get other opinions, at times.
by the way ....i'm a mother.
oops. sorry.
i understand the question well. I think I was one of the first to propose (on these message boards in 2003) that fighting age men in support of the war need put their money-makers where their mouths are.
'i was a long time coming
i'll be a long time gone
you've got your whole life to do something
and that's not very long
so why don't you give me a call
when you're willing to fight
for what you think is real
for what you think is right'
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Bottom line... War should be something you are forced into, not something you choose to do.
We were forced into the 1991 Gulf War by pleas from the Arab neighbors in response to Hussein's invasion/occupation of Kuwait. We were foced to go into Afghanistan after the Taliban stood in defiance to protect Usama Bin Laden's al Qaeda network. We chose to go into Iraq. There is a big difference.
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
Comments
I thought I made that clear. Maybe you aren't being intentionally obtuse. Maybe you just really need things spelled out for you. No, you arent going to change my mind. But, I am interested in other people's viewpoints. Just not yours.
Well played hhkc. Well played.
www.myspace.com/jensvad
Lets say we run out of troops.. would you be willing to fight to keep the thing going?
Yes or no answer. Not wether you support it or not.
You can obviously support something without participating, the REAL question here is, if you had no other choice but to fight, would you sacrifice yourself for the cause?
Wouldn't that be considered cowardly also?
then why keep quoting me?
i never said i would or tried to change your mind, just asking you to back up what you were saying, and i see that got to be too much :(
that's how it always goes when someone can't hang...they suddenly become disinterested in my viewpoint. don't be scared, i won't bite
btw, the army doesn't give psychological tests
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
It's time to move to Canada.
Dubya calls you tomorrow. He says the war is all but lost unless YOU join and fight. 230,000 troops is not enough. They need 230,001 and you are the last able body because every other American freakishly suddenly became disabled.. You will serve a year and there's a 1.5% chance you will die in combat.
Do you fight? Yes or No?
You can support something without having the will to take part in it... I think the main point of this thread, was asking who would have the will to fight, not wether you support it. I wouldn't fight for Vietnam or Iraq, but World War 2,.. YOU BET YOUR ASS I WOULD!
Fair enough. As for the insults, jeez you throw 'em at me all the time. Dont be a big baby.
Freedom is Slavery
Ignorance is Strength
It's crazy to think that at the time, a large majority of the American public were against participating in WW2. Both Presidential candidates made promises not to get involved in Europe's war (although Roosevelt badly wanted to America more involved than sneaking supplies over the ocean).
Police offiicer salaries are paid with tax dollars, and I'm sure if people were asked whether they would be willing to pay more taxes to keep people from robbing banks, their answer would be yes.
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825
Totally off topic there. This thread isn't about whether the war is justified. It's about whether or not it's an act of cowardice to support a war without wanting to be directly involved in it. The circumstances surrounding the war itself is a whole other argument.
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825
you gave the swat comparison and concluded w/ "right now in iraq they are following their career paths."
i'm saying your swat analogy can't be used w/ iraq.
why are the swat being sent? b/c robbers are inside a bank.
in the case of iraq no one was ever in a bank. swat was sent b/c someone said iraq was gonna rob a bank... only to find they had no intention, they didn't even have a ride to the bank or a toy gun
or...another way they swat team busts in and finds they were just a customer waiting to deposit some money
i get your point 'it's their job', but that is nowhere does their job state harassing ppl like that. just as the military's is to DEFEND, not escalate, not secure resources or nationbuilding or cheap, disposable labor
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
Again, that's not the point of this thread. The point of this thread is not whether Iraq is what the government portrays it to be.
The point of this thread is simply whether someone's 15 y/o kid is a chickenhawk because he supports a war that he is not personally interested in fighting.
The logic we're faced with in this thread can apply to any war, whatever the circumstances of that war.
So, what I'm saying is that yes it is reasonable for a person to support a war without wanting to fight in it for the simple fact that soldiers engage in soldiering by choice of profession, not by personal conviction.
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825
you can't always apply things to every single circumstance...things aren't that black and white
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
Perhaps, perhaps not. I can't control what other people think of me or others who share my viewpoint.
High Traffic ART EZI FTJ JSR KPA PCD SYN ULX VLB YHF
Low Traffic CIO MIW
Non Traffic ABC BAY FDU GBZ HNC NDP OEM ROV TMS ZWL
Do you think that if that person lived in a country where service is mandatory (like Israel for example) he would be as enthousiastic about war? War is not something funny that goes on somewhere far away from home and the reasons you have to support it should be strong enough to send you fight for it (if the country needs it).
naděje umírá poslední
There is a crapton of gray area here. i'm not so sure it is a fair question for a 15 year old kid. Ask him again in about three years when the fucking thing is still being fought.
Also exempt from this question would be the elderly or physically incapable. Certainly they could support a military action without physically taking part.
For a simpler, more straight forward answer to your question, anyone of appropriate age and physical fitness, going on about a war they feel is justifiable, should probably be ready to lace up their boots.
Personally, i feel that war is such a serious thing, that any thing i believed justified war, would HAVE to be something i would be willing to fight for (if capable, of course), or have any of my three sons fight for.
Before anyone asks, Iraq definitely does not fall into that category.
i don't know, any thread that draws an increasingly rare .02 from HHKC can't be all that bad.
(HHKC, how ya doin, buddy?)
Either way, I agree with the original poster, to an extent. I guess it depends on your level of support. Obviously the threshold of your son's support isn't as high as someone who would actually go to war. So he's supporting it in voice, but not in action. Still support, but not nearly as sincere.
I think you have sour grapes that your son shares a different view than you. Holding a belief and acting on that belief are two different things and the first does not require the latter.
I know a couple of recruiters here at work The told me that they have adjusted the physical, emotional and intelectual requirements for active service (and the also increased the maximum age requirement).
You don't have to be in peak fighting condition to provide logistical support for combat units. Sure, you will have to make it through basic training and small arms handling, but there are a awful lot of people working behind the scenes in the Middle East theater.
Are those behind the scenes personel in harm's way? Of course they are. Anytime you mount a military operation, there are hazzards involved. But, if you look at it from their view... it is less likely that you will be killed or injured doing communications work in the Green Zone, than going out on street patrol in Sadr City.
Hail, Hail!!!
I support deep sea research. There is no way I am going got go do it.
I support gay marriage. There is no way I am going to marry another guy.
I support a womans right to choose. I am not willing to choose for her or willing to perform the abortion if she chooses to have one.
Let's hope you've never taken any of your family to see a doctor. Because if you really felt doctors were necessary you would have devoted and sacrificed 7-11 years of your life to learning to be one.
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
I didnt try to join the army.
www.myspace.com/jensvad
I think people are looking at this question in the most simplistic of forms in order to ...i don't know why. I'm not picking on you, but your post kind of sums up best the argument that seems to support those who would support war, yet not be involved in the fighting of it. Which is fine. To an extent.
The original post brought the views of a 15-year-old son to his father on the matter. The father is saying to his son that, if it comes to war, if I believe it to be just, I will fight, otherwise I cannot support it. The son is saying to his father, whether or not I believe it is just, I can support it without having to fight in it.
This is about taking up arms in defense of your country. It isn't about women's health, it isn't about janitorial duities, it isn't about medicine. It's about the ultimate sacrifice in the most dangerous and risky of endevours a human can take, and being put in the postition to make that kind of totally selfless decision that could change your life forever. Or end it in a moments notice. If it is justified (where are those wolverine (Red Dawn) lovers now?), I don't see how anyone could refuse the privilege to fight and possibly die for their country.
So, I can't see the son's side of the argument. I think those of you on that side of the argument who are able-bodied and of fighting age need to know what the sacrifce really means before you can ascertain to argue that this is just another one of those decisions you make on a whimsy.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
to you and just a few others who understood the real question. i honestly wanted REAL feedback. i'm trying to raise my kids the best i can and it is good, i think, to get other opinions, at times.
by the way ....i'm a mother.
oops. sorry.
i understand the question well. I think I was one of the first to propose (on these message boards in 2003) that fighting age men in support of the war need put their money-makers where their mouths are.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
i'll be a long time gone
you've got your whole life to do something
and that's not very long
so why don't you give me a call
when you're willing to fight
for what you think is real
for what you think is right'
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
We were forced into the 1991 Gulf War by pleas from the Arab neighbors in response to Hussein's invasion/occupation of Kuwait. We were foced to go into Afghanistan after the Taliban stood in defiance to protect Usama Bin Laden's al Qaeda network. We chose to go into Iraq. There is a big difference.
Hail, Hail!!!