[quote]Elkhntr1 wrote:
Good ol Boston, cool as a cucumber… with your “I will squelch this with a calm intellectual challenge which he won’t or more likely can’t answer” and put an end to this.
Without giving you examples or comparisons of civilian or non civilian run militaries, I will simply say this, I think it is the of the utmost cowardice and shame that one would be so vocally supportive of a war and offer insight to combat when that person is of military service age, healthy, living the high-life, while others are currently dying! Thats very conservative of you![/quote]
Elk:
Quite clever with your use of the word “conservative.” You see everyone, Elk is humorous: He typed “conservative”, but he meant “cowardly.” Isn’t that clever. Are you certain you aren’t sandbagging your rhetorical skills in your other posts?
BTW, above I wasn’t offering insights into the experience of combat, with which I have no experience. Rather, I was referencing the facts, such as they are available, of the types of things that have gone on in the fighting of modern wars. I don’t think you were disputing the contention that in all previous wars soldiers have done things that would likely be considered “war crimes” as referencing RangerTab’s comment above?
Now, all cleverness aside, as to your opinion, you’re entitled to it, and you can be certain I will weigh it equally with your other, equally meritorious opinions… But it seems to me that you’re neglecting something in your analysis, and that is the nature of our forces. We have an all-volunteer armed service. If this were a drafted service, you would perhaps have a point. However, we have no conscripts, and those brave young and not-so-young people in our military all signed up to serve. Perhaps this does not matter to you, but I think there is a large difference between advocating use of force with an all-volunteer, professional army versus advocating use of force using conscripts.
As I’ve told you before, if this were a conflict that required conscription, I would do my duty as called upon. I’m 30, healthy, and while my eyesight wouldn’t qualify me for a pilot I’m certain they could find something to do with me. They wouldn’t stick me in the infantry unless the situation were dire, but they could invest the resources necessary to re-train me for trial law or something related. Perhaps not much of a value-add, comparatively. However, given the type of war this is – one that is taking a smaller percentage of GDP than any other war that I’ve examined – it doesn’t seem that this conflict needs full mobilization of the populace, either economically “for the war effort” or via conscription of fighting-age men. Given that, perhaps you’ll agree (or perhaps not) that one can make valuable contributions to the efforts in Iraq by adding to the economy here at home, and then donating to charities to support the troops and their families. Not to mention voting and advocating the policies actually favored by a majority of those serving – and if you’ll be so kind as to recall, a lot more of those currently serving agree with my positions on Iraq than agree with yours… At least if you believe the only surveys taken on the matter, or the results of the voting.
Of course, being the old desert fox that you are, I’m sure you’ve considered the political import of being able to convince all your opponents they should clear out, but that’s probably not on your radar screen as a main issue.
As far as it goes Elk, I stand by the sentiment that you deserve plaudits for your previous service. But your constant reliance on an ad hominem argument simply highlights the weakness of your points. Perhaps the weakness in your arguments is the main cause of your desire to lash out against those who take the position opposite your own?
) It is very eye-openeing to read the differences of opinion though.