If you believe that war is the answer,

Here's a better scenario..

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?

PaperPlates wrote:

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

LikeAnOcean wrote:

Here's a better scenario..

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!

LikeAnOcean wrote:

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).

LikeAnOcean wrote:

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.

sponger wrote:

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

sponger wrote:

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

sponger wrote:

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).

yellowbird wrote:

are you willing to fight?

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.

PaperPlates wrote:

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.