Generation Chickenhawk: With The College Republicans

ergo its ok to send them off to die in an unnecessary war?

 

So if another president want to take over Canada (not going to happen) you would be fine with volunteer army losing soliders? Army is there to protect the country and should only be used when absolutely necessary, it is not some toy for the president to play with. Once again, what was the justification for invading Iraq?

 

You have a right to your opinion.

 

But you seem to be using the statement that, "It's a volunteer army" as sufficent cause to do whatever you want to them. This is nothing rhadamanthus said. You are the one who brought up the volunteer army thing. Why other than to claim it is sufficent cause that they can be mistreated?

 

You don't create terrorists. If somebody is not of the type that is willing to blow up a pizzeria, nothing you can do will make them do it.

If they are of that mindset, then they are already terrorists...all they needed was a cause to scribble on their dry erase placard.

 

That is a new one, they were terrorists before they became terrorists.

 

They opted for the military life-- just the way a fireman or a policeman opts for that life. It has risks-- none more dangerous than the military.

Surely they know this going in.

I'm not sure is you are using the word "mistreat" to mean essentially the same thing they rhad does when he says "unnecessary." Is that what you mean?

 

Of course they know they are signing up for dangerous duty that doesn't mean that they have to be sent into danger.

The argument that its a volunteer army so its OK that we send them to battle never made sense to me. Yes these people are volunteering but IMO that means we should less cavilear about sending them into harms way. These people out of sense of duty and other reasons have volunteered and IMO its disrespectful of that sense of duty to consider them expendable.

 

cops - a bank robbery is actually taking place - they are dispatched
firemen - a building is actually on fire - they are dispatched
army - they are dispatched based on someones decision based on lies/manipulated facts

 

So you would be cool with ordering a bunch of unarmed police to rush a gang of psychotic murderers with machine guns? After all, they knew that they were entering a dangerous profession beforehand, right?

Clearly you never thought about joining the military, or bothered to think about why someone would consider it. The willingness to join the military is based on the same sort of two way street of loyalty that caused a feudal knight pledge fealty to a liege lord.

A soldier in the US military pledges to die for the country if it is really necessary and in return the country pledges that it will value the soldier and ask for their sacrifice only when it is absolutely necessary and will do so with a heavy heart.

Throwing their sacrifice with the disinterest that you seem to show is disrespectful, and if I were 18 and thinking about joining the military, it would be the apathetic disinterest of people like you that would keep me from doing so.

Your lack of understanding of the weight of this responsibility, like you are planning out the strategy for your units in a game of Command & Conquer, is the attitude of the chickenhawk personified.

 

Those "risks" are for a purpose. There is no purpose in Iraq worthy of their sacrifice.

Chickenhawk.

 

Well, I can't speak for cops, but regarding fire, I think I have a little standing.

I wouldn't equate fire with military in any real way.

There are no acceptable casualties in fire. None. Bad things happen, but they happen because we reach a point where the environment becomes so complex that we cannot adequately mitigate the dangers. That's why we are trained to literally run away when we see that the environment is on the way to reaching such complexity.

In the military, there is obviously an acceptable threshold of casualties. In Iraq, it is also obvious that the military cannot mitigate all the dangers they face and neither can they run away. They have to sit there and take it even if the chance of accomplishing strategic objectives (if they have any real strategic objectives... it looks to me like a bunch of WH talking points) is slim.

Firefighters will gladly give ground for a safer, more defensible position.

Nobody hates firefighters. Aside from the occasional booby-trapped maryjane farm out in the middle of the woods, nobody shoots at us.

I've never occupied burned ground.

Unlike the military, we get the equipment we need to do our job safely.

Most people go into this job recognizing you will have to do dangerous stuff at times in order to help people and protect the resources of this country, but knowing that safety is the top priority and that the leadership will not intentionally put you into bad situations. If you're not comfortable with a situation, you have the right to question the assignment and work with your supervisor to redesign the assignment to mitigate dangers.

Military folks go into it to do good things for their country, but recognize that they may need to shoot people and will probably get shot at. You do not know that the leadership will not bow to higher authorities and put you in danger unnecessarily. If you're not comfortable with a situation, it will be hard to question the assignment.

Proportionally, you see fewer people getting into fire as a long-term means of improving their socio-economic standing.

While there may be similarities in the way our organizations function and the perceived risk that we both take, the risks are not close to the same, the expectations are miles apart, and the way someone picks fire is not close to the way people pick the military.

 

Lots of soldiers still think we are doing the right thing in Iraq, so where do you get off pronouncing the mission unnecessary? Why do you feel a need to re-cast things?

I don't have a disinterest in their sacrifice. I think of it as a matter-of-factness that I imagine most soldiers embrace.

Most soldiers talk of the "job" they have to do in a very matter-of-fact way.

 

I didn't equate; I made an analogy the crux of which was the voluntary basis for doing a dangerous job. All three professions have that in common in today's climate.

Not to be disrespectful, but I bet most military people wish their enemy was a simple as fire-- as tough as it is sometime.

 

You have a right to your opinion.

 

That's completely and absolutely wrong. Granted, some psychopathic personalities will be the same regardless, but there is a rather voluminous history of terrorists and terrorist enablers - being created by the actions of others - which in turn makes it more likely for people to become brainwashed and fall into this sort of thing. This type of denial is distinctly counterproductive.

 

I'm not sure who you think is considering them expendable. Everyone knows there will be casualties in war. It's just a tragic fact. That's why you said what you did about caution, but I'm not sure how you come to the conclusion that the vallue of the lives of these volunteer soldiers is not a weighty consideration.

 

When was the last time you spoke with an active duty soldier who has been to Iraq about Iraq? Most soldiers that I have spoken with are quite a bit more respectful and aware of the sacrifice of their fallen comrades than you.

 

I'm not even going to bother here. You are just going to say what satifies you. BTW, I have a Sunday School classmate who spent a year in Iraq. He came back last Winter. He's talked with us and I've talked to him. Think what you want.

I think it is more honorable to talk about doing an important job than your language of unnecessary engagement, but you will believe what you want to believe so I don't give a rat's ass.

 

It is more honorable to be grateful for their service regardless of what it was. It certainly isn't honorable to pretend and lie about the mission being necessary when it clearly wasn't.