If you believe that war is the answer,

PaperPlates wrote:

Are you a recruiter?

...
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.

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?

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.

ProvidenceHunter wrote:

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.

yellowbird wrote:

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.

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.

gue_barium wrote:

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.

and the flip side to that nonsense is those not supporting the government's position should go live in the country they don't want to fight.

Gee que, it's easy being simple minded.

gue_barium wrote:

I believe the first Gulf War was manipulated by Hussein's CIA "trusted". He got fooled into believing he could get away with it. By operatives from the USA.

Just my theory.

...
I don't know about that. I understood that Hussein truely believed that Kuwait was actually a part of Iraq and that the West would not interfere with his 'reclaiming what was once his'.
Hopefully, the truth will be told to us... some day.

Alex_Coe wrote:

"If you support the war, go fight in it because you want to support it!"

Ok... this is the flip side:

"If you are against this war, you are dissenting from our way of life and our government. Therefore, move to Canada- or better yet- Iraq!"





Both sides are BS folks. Fact.

Thanks for the simplification.

You silly willy.

sponger wrote:

In no way did my post imply that things are black and white.

You don't have to.

You're an asshole.

It's a fun occupation, isn't it?

sponger wrote:

I'm sure it beats that paper route you've been working.

Heehee.

I guess I am King here, if that's the best you can throw.