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]
Why would they be first in line? By virtue of their parent getting voting into office? That doesn’t make any sense.
An “of age” child can make up his or her mind on whether to join the Armed forces. And 18 year olds love to make up their own minds independent of their parents.
Why would their be some kind of unusually higher percentage of public officials’ kids signing up for war? They don’t owe their parents service in the Armed forces just because their parent voted for war.
Have you met anyone, anywhere?
Isn’t is perfectly plausible that they might even disagree with their parent’s vote on the war? What?! An 18 yeard old disagreeing with their parents on a political matter?
Do the math - even Ronald Reagan’s boy wouldn’t vote for Ronald Reagan today. This weird suggestion that children are somehow an extension of their parents, especially when they are no longer of minority age, is baseless.
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…
Why would they be first in line? By virtue of their parent getting voting into office? That doesn’t make any sense.
An “of age” child can make up his or her mind on whether to join the Armed forces. And 18 year olds love to make up their own minds independent of their parents.
Why would their be some kind of unusually higher percentage of public officials’ kids signing up for war? They don’t owe their parents service in the Armed forces just because their parent voted for war.
Have you met anyone, anywhere?
Isn’t is perfectly plausible that they might even disagree with their parent’s vote on the war? What?! An 18 yeard old disagreeing with their parents on a political matter?
Do the math - even Ronald Reagan’s boy wouldn’t vote for Ronald Reagan today. This weird suggestion that children are somehow an extension of their parents, especially when they are no longer of minority age, is baseless.[/quote]
I teach lots of boys and girls of this age and they will often do exactly the opposite of whatever their parents believe, just to piss 'em off. The most ardent guys who joined the Marines often have far-left, lib, former hippie parents. One guys who has a ‘mom + female friend’ wants to kill all gays and is quite outspoken about it.
[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]
Bullshit. If MMoore’s ideas were presented like that - no one would come see his fucking movie.
Do people hold YOUR parents responsible for what you have or have not done? (this assumes you are actually old enough to play this game)
I think that the vote in fornt of congress was “Should we go to war?” not “Should we agonize and bemoan the fact that our children chose a path that didn’t include military service?”
It is a chicken shit argument to vilify congressmen whose children don’t join the military. Blame the damn kids. Unless you think it is fair game for the USA to blame your parents for your choices.
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…
Why would they be first in line? By virtue of their parent getting voting into office? That doesn’t make any sense.
An “of age” child can make up his or her mind on whether to join the Armed forces. And 18 year olds love to make up their own minds independent of their parents.
Why would their be some kind of unusually higher percentage of public officials’ kids signing up for war? They don’t owe their parents service in the Armed forces just because their parent voted for war.
Have you met anyone, anywhere?
Isn’t is perfectly plausible that they might even disagree with their parent’s vote on the war? What?! An 18 yeard old disagreeing with their parents on a political matter?
Do the math - even Ronald Reagan’s boy wouldn’t vote for Ronald Reagan today. This weird suggestion that children are somehow an extension of their parents, especially when they are no longer of minority age, is baseless.[/quote]
How is it baseless? I would guarantee that many soldiers in the military had military parents. If you think their parent’s service had NOTHING to do with their future choices, that doesn’t point to a baseless conclusion. It points you not accepting reality. Your parent’s values are what help shape who you are. No one is saying that a kid doesn’t think for themselves.
However, if a child is raised in a home where service and duty are any codes of honor at all, you think that this has no influence? Yes, I would expect the children of representatives to have more of a sense of “patriotism” than that. I think it is sad you are making excuses for the lack of it.
However, if a child is raised in a home where service and duty are any codes of honor at all, you think that this has no influence? Yes, I would expect the children of representatives to have more of a sense of “patriotism” than that. I think it is sad you are making excuses for the lack of it.[/quote]
When did I say that there was no influence?
You said their kids should be first in line to join up.
I said there is no reason why they should be the first to join up. I said that there is no direct correlation to a Congressman voting for war and his son or daughter being morally obligated to serve in the war the Congressman voted for.
There is a difference between influence and compulsion/obligation.
We were discussing compulsion/obligation till you jerked us into the ditch.
However, if a child is raised in a home where service and duty are any codes of honor at all, you think that this has no influence? Yes, I would expect the children of representatives to have more of a sense of “patriotism” than that. I think it is sad you are making excuses for the lack of it.
When did I say that there was no influence?
You said their kids should be first in line to join up.
I said there is no reason why they should be the first to join up. I said that there is no direct correlation to a Congressman voting for war and his son or daughter being morally obligated to serve in the war the Congressman voted for.
There is a difference between influence and compulsion/obligation.
We were discussing compulsion/obligation till you jerked us into the ditch.[/quote]
Wouldn’t a child raised in a patriotic home feel more “compulsion/obligation” to serve? It isn’t like I am expecting them to all be ground troops. There are several well educated men and women in the military that aren’t on the front lines. I just find it odd that many of the same people voting us into war seem to have homes that don’t display all that much patriotism when it comes to themselves or their children. Don’t even you find that odd?
I just find it odd that many of the same people voting us into war seem to have homes that don’t display all that much patriotism when it comes to themselves or their children. Don’t even you find that odd?[/quote]
Well, I can’t find it odd if I have no idea if is true or not.
How exactly do you come to this conclusion? How do you know these Congressmen that voted for the war don’t have all that much patriotism when it comes to themselves or their children?
Show me how you deduced that conclusion.
Did you figure the percentage of families that have someone serving compared to the percentage of Congressional families that have someone serving? Is it substantially different?
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.
…[/quote]
I wouldn’t let that obese deceptive piece of shit in my home or office.
They likely would have had the same reaction if he tried to sell them girl scout cookies.
I haven’t seen the movie. After Bowling for Columbine I swore I would never watch any more of his material.
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]
I believe his son that was the general volunteered to land at Normany on D-Day even though he had a heart condition. I don’t think he made it home either.
Our society is so much different than it was and our politicians are merely a reflection of our society.
[quote]LBRTRN wrote:
Jeff_with_a_G wrote:
derek wrote:
Jeff_with_a_G wrote:
After the 2004 election, the London Daily Mirror ran a headline titled “How can 58 million people be so stupid?” I wonder the same thing myself.
Not only did you READ this publication, but you committed it to memory? How utterly wasteful.
Well at least there’s solace in knowing that you are among the minority.
Actually, I saw the headline posted on a blog. But, yes, I am proud to say that I’m not one of the 58 million morons.
Im assuming you voted for Kerry, right? What makes him so different than Bush? The electorate essentially had a choice between two douche bags. When faced with the coice, I think most people vote for the douche bag who they disagree with the least…and Bush was that man.
However, I dont think that makes them morons. Now if only people would start voting for third parties more often…
[/quote]
you hit the nail right on the head except maybe for the douche bag part didn’t your mama ever tell not to point? because you got 3 other fingers pointing right back at you
[quote]Professor X wrote:
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.
Exactly. It is a very simple concept really. [/quote]
I don’t think that it’s necessarily hypocritcal. There’s something to be said for putting your money where your mouth is. But you don’t have to want to participate in something to think it’s a good a noble thing. Taking war as a specific example, that’s why we don’t have a draft anymore. And it makes the sacrifices of those who DO choose to fight for their country all the more admirable and noble. As for this particular war, I have some problems with it. I think the professed reasons were not the main reasons we went in.
I don’t think the going in is worth the costs though it’s not all bad and some good has been done. I think there was a remarkable lack of foresight as to what we could and hoped to accomplish. (history has proven time and time again that we’re not nation builders). I think a much better job could’ve been done at trying to establish a international coaliation and share in the efforts and rebuilding benefits. But there are times when I think war might absolutely be the right choice. But it doesn’t mean that I’d want my kids to risk their lives. On some level it may be hypocrisy. But true hypocrisy is professing the wronghood of something while participating in it yourself.
I just find it odd that many of the same people voting us into war seem to have homes that don’t display all that much patriotism when it comes to themselves or their children. Don’t even you find that odd?
[/quote]
Not really. Law enforcement and being a fireman are noble professions. There’s an inherent danger to them beyond other jobs, and this is part of what makes it noble. That people would risk their own lives to benefit others. But not everyone is cut out for it, and I’m sure there are millions of parents who wouldn’t want their kids to put themselves in harms way like that. It doesn’t mean they don’t appreciate those who do or greatly respect them. It doesn’t mean we whouldn’t have those jobs because not everyone is willing or able to perform them.
I just find it odd that many of the same people voting us into war seem to have homes that don’t display all that much patriotism when it comes to themselves or their children. Don’t even you find that odd?
Well, I can’t find it odd if I have no idea if is true or not.
How exactly do you come to this conclusion? How do you know these Congressmen that voted for the war don’t have all that much patriotism when it comes to themselves or their children?
Show me how you deduced that conclusion.
Did you figure the percentage of families that have someone serving compared to the percentage of Congressional families that have someone serving? Is it substantially different?
Where does your conclusion come from?[/quote]
In all honesty, my “conclusion”, “assumption” or whatever you want to call it only comes from what I hear in the media over time. I doubt anyone has polled any of these people directly to come up with specific numbers. I am not sure any of them would allow that intimate an audit.
First of it amuses me to think about michealmoore yelling “Four more months” at the RNC.
Wrong!!!
Oh, in respond to pox’s comment about rich and Republican being the people who get “out of war.”
Here you go:
"Fahrenheit 9/11 closes with a stunt: Michael Moore’s attempt to get members of Congress to send their children to serve in Iraq as a way of pointing out the class divide between the United States’ leaders and the people who serve in the military. Moore does acknowledge that at the start of the war in Iraq, there appears to have been only one member of Congress with a child serving in Iraq: Sen. Tim Johnson (D-South Dakota), whose son Brooks serves in the Army.
Two more Congressmen had sons who reportedly were being sent to Iraq in late 2003 or early 2004: Representatives Joe Wilson (R-South Carolina) and Duncan Hunter (R-California).
In addition, there are some other members of Congress and the Bush administration with children or relatives serving in the military if not necessarily in Iraq. For example, Representative Mark Kennedy (R-Minnesota), who was seen in Fahrenheit 9/11, reportedly has a nephew serving in Afghanistan, and one of his four children reportedly was thinking of joining the navy. Attorney General John Ashcroft’s son Andrew also reportedly has served in the Navy in the Persian Gulf"
Please take the time to add up the number of Republican versus democrats with children serving.
[quote]JeffR wrote:
Please take the time to add up the number of Republican versus democrats with children serving.
Thanks,
JeffR[/quote]
Why would I do that? I consider both parties hypocrites. I am for the one who brings the most men home alive because I honestly think this war was full of shit.
As far as I am concerned, we should not engage in any war that is not worth drafting for. [/quote]
I would agree except draftees typically make bad soldiers. The military does not want a draft. We should not draft until it becomes absolutely necessary.
As far as I am concerned, we should not engage in any war that is not worth drafting for.
I would agree except draftees typically make bad soldiers. The military does not want a draft. We should not draft until it becomes absolutely necessary.
We should not go to war unless it is absolutely necessary. One follows the other to me. If war is absolutely necessary, then so is a draft.[/quote]
Most wars will be small scale and will not require massive amounts of manpower.
Why degrade our military with a draft?
Save the draft for if/when we need millions of soldiers.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
JeffR wrote:
Please take the time to add up the number of Republican versus democrats with children serving.
Thanks,
JeffR
Why would I do that? I consider both parties hypocrites. I am for the one who brings the most men home alive because I honestly think this war was full of shit.[/quote]