RM95, Nope, never served, but would if called to do so. As for clarifying, he did explain it, but it doesn't change the fact that he ducked the draft, now does it? DD
Against my better judgement, I will make a quick foray into these questions : a) suicide attacks: = or not = to homicide attacks? and b) is there a distinction between military and civilian targets? Now think about that for a brief moment. Let's put the shoe on the other foot : Assume the US decides to take the same approach, becomes irate, and sends a suicide bombers to Bagdad, Damascus, even Jerusasem with a nuclear weapons that incinerate the region, our troops, our allies. There is, after all, no distinction between civilians and military, the war can be expanded indefinately as cultural/religious, and the troops and allies that we extinquished with the surprise attack were disposeable mortal fodder anyway- they will meet their true reward in heaven. Are you happy now? the upside : we have a clean desert for new drilling.
War is a non-moral activity. Ethics still apply, and suicide bombers are obviously not ethical. IMO, the PLO pretty much sealed its fate. We should send about 4 armored divisions to Isreal and expand their borders by about 1000 miles.
Guess I'm an idiot too. If the suicide bombers intentionally attack civilians or use civilian dress to do their deed (thus endangering real civilians), then I see a moral difference. That's the point you make to MacBeth. But w/o those qualifications, I see no moral difference. If the suicide bomber is dressed in fatigues and rams his bomb-filled truck into an APC, it's the same (morally) if the bomb had dropped from 10,000 feet. (Also, I'm assuming that we're not really addressing the morality of suicide itself, since that's really between the bomber and his God)
You're right, using your Daddy's pull to get you a National Guard post (to avoid the draft) then going AWOL/deserting the National Guard during a time a war isn't exactly draft dodging.
Clinton did and he is a cowardly, scum sucker for doing it, too. He should have served out of respect for the freedoms this society protects or filed as a contientious objector (I have no problem with this) and/or faced prison for refusal to serve. Dodging is just plain, BS. I hold Bush in the same light. Only since his Daddy had pull, he had an easier time working the system to his advantage. Democrat, Republican or Other, its still BS in my book. (Just in case you can't tell, I could care less about partisan bullsh*t. I would have voted for Colin Powell (R), had he run.)
Actually, as it turns out George W. Bush served in VietNam. He was in the 101st Airborne and engaged many Viet Cong troops throughout the conflict. Because of his special heroics in battle, he was awarded several medals for bravery, etc. including the Congressional Medal of Honor and the Presidential Medal of Freedom. George W. Bush is the most decorated soldier in the history of the United States Armed Forces. A documentary is coming soon. Clinton also faught in VietNam, but on the other side. He manned anti-aircraft guns against American fighter planes and killed many American soldiers. Also, when he was President, he snuck out at night and sold crack on the streets of Washington, D.C.
We could put the shoe on the third foot and contemplate what the US would do if it were invaded by a much stronger military. Killing innocent civilians probably wouldn't be on the agenda but we probably wouldn't give a damn to have the enemy lecture us on the rules of war while we're trying to defend our land by all means necessary.
I disagree, air national guard during vietnam was most certainly the same as draft dodging since there was about a zero percent chance of being deployed outside the state of Texas. Anyways, back to the first page where it analyzes the Arab mindset. Not believing in cause and effect combined with their other beliefs does a lot to explain why they suck at war.
