Issue #2 is a non-issue.
Issue #1 isn’t.
Anyway, now that everyone is being open and honest about privilege, maybe they’ll admit it is possible that Bush was shown deference due to his background?
[quote]vroom wrote:
Issue #2 is a non-issue.
Issue #1 isn’t.
Anyway, now that everyone is being open and honest about privilege, maybe they’ll admit it is possible that Bush was shown deference due to his background?[/quote]
Absolutely. Which will happen in both parties. In this day and age, I personally, don’t feel it important to have a president who was a hero or a solider. It’s nice, but I think it’s a non-issue. Not it the man who’s better for the job happens not to have served.
If there ever is a draft again, which I tend to doubt, I don’t think there should be some broad statutory that exempts the sons (and daughters) of politicians or top officals. That would be wrong. As a practical matter, pull and influence would still be used to keep them from fighting. Just as my own parents would (and probably could)do their damndest to keep me from getting drafted even if I in fact did want to fight.
Of course he was. So are many other people.
I can see it now Prof X.
Al Qaeda: Mr. Richardson (me). We have your son. He will be executed in four days if you do not remove your troops from Najaf,
Me: Uh, I don’t HAVE any troops there. I don’t even HAVE any troops at all.
Al Qaeda: Then release all of our brothers from captivity… you are running out of time.
Me: I’m not holding any of your “brothers”. What are thier names? Where did they go to school?
Al Qaeda: Mr. Richardson (me) give us 4 M1 Abrahams tanks in exchange for your son’s life.
Me: I have two Jeep Cherokees and an old Bronco. Will those do?
Al Qaeda: We are running out of patience. We demand 100 A4’s, 200 SAW’s, 100 MP5’s, 200 M16A2’s and 200 M203 grenade launchers before sunset tonight.
Me: Ummmm. All I can get you is 1 Mossberg 500 12 gauge, 1 Ruger P89 9mm, 1 Jenkins 32 cal semi auto, 1 Ruger mini 14 and a 1943 SMLE 303 rifle. That’s the best I can do.
Al Qaeda: OK, give us $500,000 in small US currency. NOW Mr. Richardson, NOW!
Me: Look, I’ll ask my wife to give up the money we were saving for a new roof. We have $2,400. Is that enough?
NOW do you see why kidapping a President’s kid just might be more of a national threat than kidnapping MY son? What the hell are they going to get from ME?
The President on the other hand…
Derek, are you still maintaining that it’s against public policy for a presidenet (or CIA director’s) kid to go to war?
[quote]vroom wrote:
Anyway, now that everyone is being open and honest about privilege, maybe they’ll admit it is possible that Bush was shown deference due to his background?[/quote]
I don’t think any rational person would deny that.
But to make it sound as if he was the only guy in the United Sates to get that deference is as wrong as denying that he did.
His dad was rich. He got into really good schools. He never had to put up much of his own money in his business ventures. He didn’t go to Viet Nam.
That story is true of a lot more folks than just the kids of public servants.
That begs the question - does that make GWB the stupidest President? Do those things make him a moron? It has been argued on here that they do.
[quote]jsbrook wrote:
I don’t think people should be exempt from military service simply because of who their parents are. But I do think they should, in many cases, have protection. Whether or not they’re in the armed forces. [/quote]
Absolutely, they should have protection, as should everyone in the armed forces. I personally recommend the M14 rifle and the 1911 .45 pistol, along with sufficient training in their use. Those crummy M16s and M9s offer very underwhelming protection for military personnel, whatever their political connections. Especially in a desert environment.
Seriously, though, any captured soldier can compromise a mission, if he or she is tortured into giving information. The United States has a longstanding policy of not negotiating for hostages, so if we are to walk our talk, even a Senator’s son or Congressman’s daughter shouldn’t be able to be traded for a crate of Stinger missiles, troop reductions, or any other military concessions.
One small anecdote, to illustrate how far our great nation has come. In the First World War, four brothers and one sister went to Europe to serve their country.
One brother, a pilot in the Army Air Force, was killed in action when his plane was shot down.
Another, an Army officer, was severely wounded, received the French Croix de Guerre, and went on to fight again in the Second World War.
Another brother first served as an officer in the British Expeditionary Force, then later in the US Army Field Artillery. He was awarded the British Military Cross, and fought again in World War II.
The fourth brother was gassed and wounded, then went on to become a General in World War II, this time winning the Medal of Honor.
Their sister worked as a nurse in Ambulance Americaine, treating American, British and French wounded soldiers.
All five volunteered for action, even though they had ironclad political connections: their father was President Theodore Roosevelt.
It was a different country then.
[quote]jsbrook wrote:
And what exactly are you saying. The government should pay for the private security of every single soldier we have? It is unforunately unfeasible to prevent every single soldier from being caputured and tortured or killed. However, a soldier who is captured and used as a means of extortion to get information from top officials jeopardizes everyone: you, me, and those very soldiers you’re talking about.
[/quote]
Did I write that the government should pay for private security? Shit, they took long enough just outfitting our men on the ground in this “war” with proper armour. I just remember the controversy over F9/11 (I movie I never even saw) when several politicians were asked if they would send their own children to fight for this war.
There seemed to be tha attitude that Micheal Moore was off base by pointing that out or that he was presenting the wrong picture. From the way you all talk now, apparently he was correct. I just find it funny.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Seriously, though, any captured soldier can compromise a mission, if he or she is tortured into giving information. The United States has a longstanding policy of not negotiating for hostages, so if we are to walk our talk, even a Senator’s son or Congressman’s daughter shouldn’t be able to be traded for a crate of Stinger missiles, troop reductions, or any other military concessions.
[/quote]
Good post. Apparently, selling out your country is ok if you are Republican and rich if your kids ever get caught.
Var,
Now that’s more like it…
[quote]Professor X wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
And what exactly are you saying. The government should pay for the private security of every single soldier we have? It is unforunately unfeasible to prevent every single soldier from being caputured and tortured or killed. However, a soldier who is captured and used as a means of extortion to get information from top officials jeopardizes everyone: you, me, and those very soldiers you’re talking about.
Did I write that the government should pay for private security? Shit, they took long enough just outfitting our men on the ground in this “war” with proper armour. I just remember the controversy over F9/11 (I movie I never even saw) when several politicians were asked if they would send their own children to fight for this war.
There seemed to be tha attitude that Micheal Moore was off base by pointing that out or that he was presenting the wrong picture. From the way you all talk now, apparently he was correct. I just find it funny.
[/quote]
I didn’t really know what you were trying to say. I don’t know who ‘you all’ are. Michael Moore got some things right. He got a lot of things wrong or at least exagerrated them to a degree so as to lose all credibilty. I’ve never seen his movie myself, either. If his implication was that not wanting your own kids to die in war precludes feeling that the war is a just and worthy cause, he was wrong. That may not be true in all or even most cases. But as a general principle it it.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Varqanir wrote:
Seriously, though, any captured soldier can compromise a mission, if he or she is tortured into giving information. The United States has a longstanding policy of not negotiating for hostages, so if we are to walk our talk, even a Senator’s son or Congressman’s daughter shouldn’t be able to be traded for a crate of Stinger missiles, troop reductions, or any other military concessions.
Goos post. Apparently, selling out your country is ok if you are Republican and rich if your kids ever get caught.[/quote]
Or Democrat. Why would it fall according to party lines. It would not be ok. But it’s a choice betweeen two evils. It may be the wrong choice to put your kids first, but do you really think there’s not a substantial likelihood that that isn’t what would happen? And I’m not saying there should be exemptions for these kids for that reason.
That’s obviously been rejected as policy because they are not barred from serving. But, sure-if they were actually captured and identified, it could be a problem. But, assuming they served, the chances of that would be slim.
[quote]jsbrook wrote:
Michael Moore got some things right. He got a lot of things wrong or at least exagerrated them to a degree so as to lose all credibilty. I’ve never seen his movie myself, either. If his implication was that not wanting your own kids to die in war precludes feeling that the war is a just and worthy cause, he was wrong. That may not be true in all or even most cases. But as a general principle it it.
[/quote]
I think he might have been trying to demonstrate the hypocrisy of voting for a war that you have no intention of allowing your own children to fight in.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
Michael Moore got some things right. He got a lot of things wrong or at least exagerrated them to a degree so as to lose all credibilty. I’ve never seen his movie myself, either. If his implication was that not wanting your own kids to die in war precludes feeling that the war is a just and worthy cause, he was wrong. That may not be true in all or even most cases. But as a general principle it it.
I think he might have been trying to demonstrate the hypocrisy of voting for a war that you have no intention of allowing your own children to fight in.
[/quote]
Exactly. It is a very simple concept really.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
I think he might have been trying to demonstrate the hypocrisy of voting for a war that you have no intention of allowing your own children to fight in.
[/quote]
Public officials don’t ‘allow’ their children to serve. If the children are of age to join the military, they either do so voluntarily or they don’t.
The very idea that any adult, public official or not, can send or not send their child to war is idiotic.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Varqanir wrote:
I think he might have been trying to demonstrate the hypocrisy of voting for a war that you have no intention of allowing your own children to fight in.
Public officials don’t ‘allow’ their children to serve. If the children are of age to join the military, they either do so voluntarily or they don’t.
The very idea that any adult, public official or not, can send or not send their child to war is idiotic.[/quote]
Oh, picky, picky. All right, “…the hypocrisy of voting for a war that you have no intention of encouraging your own children to fight in.”
Or how’s this one? “…the hypocrisy of voting for a war that you would be absolutely aghast if your own children showed the slightest inclination toward volunteering to fight in.”
Are those statements suitably less idiotic for you, thunderbolt?
“I’m not antisemantic; some of my best friends are words.”
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Oh, picky, picky. All right, “…the hypocrisy of voting for a war that you have no intention of encouraging your own children to fight in.”
Or how’s this one? "…the hypocrisy of voting for a war that you would be absolutely aghast if your own children showed the slightest inclination toward volunteering to fight in.[/quote]
Ok, so who is doing this? If you want to show the hypocrisy, you have to show both sides and show th inconsistency.
You have a vote to go to war that you can pin on individual Congressmen - do you or anyone else have any evidence that the self-same Congressmen “would be absolutely aghast” if their children decided to participate in the military in this time of war?
Or just abstract, navel-gazing theories based on country club Republican stereotypes?
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Varqanir wrote:
Oh, picky, picky. All right, “…the hypocrisy of voting for a war that you have no intention of encouraging your own children to fight in.”
Or how’s this one? "…the hypocrisy of voting for a war that you would be absolutely aghast if your own children showed the slightest inclination toward volunteering to fight in.
Ok, so who is doing this? If you want to show the hypocrisy, you have to show both sides and show th inconsistency.
You have a vote to go to war that you can pin on individual Congressmen - do you or anyone else have any evidence that the self-same Congressmen “would be absolutely aghast” if their children decided to participate in the military in this time of war?
Or just abstract, navel-gazing theories based on country club Republican stereotypes?[/quote]
Isn’t the evidence in how few would ever join? I mean, honestly, these guys are at the forefront of issues that directly effect this country implying a need for loyalty and even patriotism. Shit, their kids should be first in line at the recruitment office…unless…
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Varqanir wrote:
Oh, picky, picky. All right, “…the hypocrisy of voting for a war that you have no intention of encouraging your own children to fight in.”
Or how’s this one? "…the hypocrisy of voting for a war that you would be absolutely aghast if your own children showed the slightest inclination toward volunteering to fight in.
Ok, so who is doing this? If you want to show the hypocrisy, you have to show both sides and show th inconsistency.
You have a vote to go to war that you can pin on individual Congressmen - do you or anyone else have any evidence that the self-same Congressmen “would be absolutely aghast” if their children decided to participate in the military in this time of war?
Or just abstract, navel-gazing theories based on country club Republican stereotypes?[/quote]
Hold your thunder, there, thunderbolt, and back up a bit, if you don’t mind. In previous posts, the topic of conversation was a motion picture by a man named Michael Moore, entitled “Fahrenheit 9/11”.
In this particular film, the director, who is also the narrator and documentor, approached a number of US Congressmen in Washington DC. These Congressmen all had two things in common: they had children of military age, and they had voted to send troops to Iraq.
Now, in the movie, Mr. Moore offers each of these Congressmen a packet of recruiting materials from various armed services, asking them if, inasmuch as they have just done the patriotic thing and voted for a war with Iraq, they would like to interest their children in a stint in the military. All of them, Democrat and Republican alike, reacted in similar manner. They gave a look of absolute horror at the very prospect, then beat a hasty retreat, without accepting the materials Moore had offered them.
Now that you’re up to speed on the topic of conversation, let me fill you in on current events leading up to my post.
Professor X had been reminiscing about all the hullabaloo on this forum a while back about that very scene, then postulating that, based on the current thread, Moore may have been right all along.
Next, jsbrook, unclear as to what the good professor meant, voiced his opinion that Moore was in fact wrong, if his implication was not wanting one’s child to die in a war somehow precludes your feeling that the war is for a just cause.
Neither of these gentlemen having actually seen the movie (Fahrenheit 9/11, remember), I then took it upon myself to voice my opinion as to what I thought Mr. Moore’s intentions actually were in filming that scene.
Savvy?
No abstract theories or stereotypes came into play. Though I do give you credit for spelling the word “navel” correctly.
If I was bored enough to actually rent and watch that ridiculous film again, I might write down the names and political parties of all of the Congressmen shown in that scene, but I think I’ll leave that pleasure for you.
Cheers!
Varqanir,
I should have been more clear - when I said “you”, I meant the generic “you”, not as in “you, Varqanir, specifically”.
Sorry for any confusion.