This is carry over from the Iran is toast thread, I thought I'd start a new topic on it.

I think this is a great topic, worthy of a seperate thread. It's quite nice and comfy to say you support a war from your plush couch watching the news and eating a pizza, isn't it? Kinda nice to know that other people are going to do all the work for you, risk their lives for you, while you sit back and pontificate on how much you "support" the war that you don't fight in. It's quite convenient, yes? And I'm not specifically saying you, 86, I'm being rhetorical.

So this is an interesting topic. Can you say you really support something as violent as a war, without fighting in it? Does that even make sense? To me, it does not. War is one thing that you cannot truly support unless you are willing to put your own ass on the line, and risk your own life. Of course, this is assuming you are able to enlist, can be accepted into the military, etc..

If you're a man and claim to "support" a foreign war but simply refuse to fight in it, then you are a coward.

Quote me on that.

I completely agree with Mandrake on this. This is an extremely important topic.

Discuss.

There are other ways to materially support the war effort besides being a soldier but I've yet to see any indication that this is occurring on a large scale here in America by very many bumper-sticker patriots.

Any organized effort to cut down on oil/gasoline consumption? Nope.

Any spike in enlistment rates since the war began? Definitely not.

The most you could say people stateside are doing in "support" is sending care packages and email messages. That's better than nothing and great for wives and soccer-moms, but I'd hardly call it any kind of worthy "support" from grown men who are perectly capable of fighting but choose not do so. Let's face it, if we had a million well-armed boots on the ground in Iraq right now there would be no "insurgency".

TBH, they should be protesting the war, not supporting it. :nice:

I did not support the war when it began. But, now I see the necessity of achiving victory in Iraq. Simply pulling out is not a viable solution. That being said, I'm old enough that the military does not want me even if I had the inclination to join.

The reality is that those who are on the ground in Iraq are volunteers. If they didn't want the chance of going to war, they shouldn't have enlisted.

The reality is that those who are on the ground in Iraq are volunteers. If they didn't want the chance of going to war, they shouldn't have enlisted.

That does not address the topic of the thread at all.

So aside from signing up what are some other ways to support the troops.

No, I don't put one those ridiculous magnets on my car.

This is carry over from the Iran is toast thread, I thought I'd start a new topic on it.





I completely agree with Mandrake on this. This is an extremely important topic.

Discuss.

Which is a convenient thing to say IF you're in the service. Moreover, what you are also saying by this admission is that the average Joe on the street is not entitled to an opinion about the war which is just about the most retarded notion I've ever heard of.

Good question!

Which is a convenient thing to say IF you're in the service. Moreover, what you are also saying by this admission is that the average Joe on the street is not entitled to an opinion about the war which is just about the most retarded notion I've ever heard of.

Retarded? Look, if you are a healthy man able to fight, and you say that you support this bullshit war, and I ask you "Then why are you not over there supporting it?" I expect a damn good answer. The people who say they are supporting this war yet do nothing are contributing to the damage it's doing to our country. And then there are the jackasses who will call you unamerican if you say you don't support the war, yet they are doing exactly jack and shit to be congruent about it.

When the consequences are this severe, as they are in war, you need to be fully consistent on where you stand about it. Either you support it all the way 100% or you don't.

[quote]
When the consequences are this severe, as they are in war, you need to be fully consistent on where you stand about it. Either you support it all the way 100% or you don't.

In the same vein, if you have not fought in a war, you have no 'right' to pontificate on the impacts of war in general. How can you possibly be against something you have never experienced, and your only exposure to war has been through mass media, (which has it's own axes to grind)?

Retarded? Look, if you are a healthy man able to fight, and you say that you support this bullshit war, and I ask you "Then why are you not over there supporting it?" I expect a damn good answer. The people who say they are supporting this war yet do nothing are contributing to the damage it's doing to our country. And then there are the jackasses who will call you unamerican if you say you don't support the war, yet they are doing exactly jack and shit to be congruent about it.

When the consequences are this severe, as they are in war, you need to be fully consistent on where you stand about it. Either you support it all the way 100% or you don't.

The problem with that argument is that it closes the door on the debate. We should be able to talk about whether a war is necessary or not without somebody pulling a ad hominem style "when you going to sign up?" question.

Using the other thread for an example if I ever decide that bombing and then invadeing Iran is a good idea and exrpess that opinion I'll be called a coward for not dropping everything and running to the recruiter.

In the same vein, if you have not fought in a war, you have no 'right' to pontificate on the impacts of war in general. How can you possibly be against something you have never experienced, and your only exposure to war has been through mass media, (which has it's own axes to grind)?

Exactly the kind of response I'd expect from a man who supports the war. Feeling a bit incongruent? Turn it around, and put the focus elsewhere.

So according to you, in your infinite wisdom, I only have the right to pontificate on the impacts of war if I have fought in one? Did everyone hear that? I just want this shimmering bit of brilliance to register for everyone.

You can not talk about the damaging impacts of war until you have fought in one. Got it? Because everybody knows, you can only understand the impacts of war from fighting in one, common sense isn't enough, the general knowledge of the bloody muders isn't enough, the horrifying pictures of the damage done isn't enough, witnessing the after effects of a loved one fighting in a war isn't enough, YOU HAVE TO HAVE FOUGHT IN ONE IN ORDER TO UNDERSTAND IT.

If you (not specifically you, Optimus) can support our troops but don't support the war or have never served in the military yourself, other people can support the war without joining the military. It's two sides to the same coin.

Only an idiot would say that one cannot support the war without fighting in it.

Especially THIS war, but really ANY war. It is patently absurd, and merely childish to make such a piquant claim.

We have a volunteer force, but it is a force with specific guidelines for those who join. These guidelines narrow the field considerably. If one is a 45 year old man, he is not in a position to just "join up". If the man happens to be over a certain weight, or under a certain height he falls outside the requirements to join.

So, by your illogic, a man who is INELIGIBLE to join and serve should be told he isn't allowed to have an opinion!!!

Still, besides your childishness...

This system, the American system, is created to allow the freedom and liberty to make the choice of what one will support REGARDLESS of one's service. Serving in the military is NOT required in this country... or perhaps you are unaware of that?

Additionally, we are set up so that the civilian authorities control the military. It is ALSO not a requirement for civilian government officials to have served in the military. And THAT is by design, as well.

You people reveal a stupidity about our system, a stupidity about logic and a stupidity about our military that is beyond belief.

Still, I would donate money for you all to be shipped to an Al Qaieda training camp so that you can take up arms against the USA. After all, if you don't support this war, why haven't you volunteered to join the forces that are fighting to destroy the USA???

Of course, it is pretty sure that they would just kill you as soon as you got to those camps. And I firmly support their right to kill you, each and every one of you. After all, those Al Qaieda guys are just living up to their convictions, right? Shouldn't you be happy that they are ready to kill you since they are standing up for what they believe.

Gosh, I'm surprised you all have not just committed suicide so that you can help those poor misunderstood Al Qaieda guys out!!

So, please. Have the courage of YOUR convictions, will ya?

Exactly the kind of response I'd expect from a man who supports the war. Feeling a bit incongruent? Turn it around, and put the focus elsewhere.

Well, except I did time in the military. Did you?


So according to you, in your infinite wisdom, I only have the right to pontificate on the impacts of war if I have fought in one? Did everyone hear that? I just want this shimmering bit of brilliance to register for everyone.

No, I'm merely exploring the opposite of your argument. Why are you feeling so defensive about this? If it's fair to denigrate those who support the war, but are not in uniform, then it's equally fair to turn the tables on those who are against it, but have never experienced it.


You can not talk about the damaging impacts of war until you have fought in one. Got it?

You can not talk in support of the war unless you are fighting in it. Got it?

Sound familiar at all?


Because everybody knows, you can only understand the impacts of war from fighting in one, common sense isn't enough, the general knowledge of the bloody muders isn't enough, the horrifying pictures of the damage done isn't enough, witnessing the after effects of a loved one fighting in a war isn't enough, YOU HAVE TO HAVE FOUGHT IN ONE IN ORDER TO UNDERSTAND IT.

How is this different from those who support, but do not fight? Are these people not exposed to the same images, the same horrifying pictures, that your mental portrait of an anti-war type experiences? Why then would their opinions count less than your hypothetical peace-nik?

The problem with that argument is that it closes the door on the debate. We should be able to talk about whether a war is necessary or not without somebody pulling a ad hominem style "when you going to sign up?" question.

Using the other thread for an example if I ever decide that bombing and then invadeing Iran is a good idea and exrpess that opinion I'll be called a coward for not dropping everything and running to the recruiter.

This is black and white. There is no grey area here. You can't sort of support a bloody war, you can't kind of not support it either. War manifests lethal consequences for both sides. It's not something to take lightly. It impacts everyone.

As far as your example goes, I think you mentioned you have a bad back. I think the physical requirements are strict for the military, so you may not be be able to enlist as a soldier, but you could go for other reasons to help, if you truly did support invading Iran. If you didn't put your money where your mouth is, then you'd be incongruent. And that is my point.

We've got a country full of people who claim to suppor this war, but do nothing about it, because they are cowards. They'll mindlessly say they support it, but they'd never put themselves out there, hell, they could get killed. But they'll gladly allow other brave soldiers to do it if it means they don't have to sacrifice their comfy house and starbucks.

Well, except I did time in the military. Did you?

No. What war did you fight in?

No, I'm merely exploring the opposite of your argument. Why are you feeling so defensive about this? If it's fair to denigrate those who support the war, but are not in uniform, then it's equally fair to turn the tables on those who are against it, but have never experienced it.

Except that is not the same thing. It would be a good point if it were, but it's not. Because experiencing war is not necessary to form an opinion or beliefs about war. We all intuitively understand war, we know what it means.

You can not talk in support of the war unless you are fighting in it. Got it?

Close - you can't truly support war unless you are willing to fight in it.

How is this different from those who support, but do not fight? Are these people not exposed to the same images, the same horrifying pictures, that your mental portrait of an anti-war type experiences? Why then would their opinions count less than your hypothetical peace-nik?

Their opinions are hollow and meaningless if they are unwilling to do it themselves. Are they willing to fight? Then their opinion actually has value, because they're congruent. Are they unwilling to fight even though they are perfectly capable of doing so? Then their opinion is worthless.

I had no idea a little bit of congruency and consistency was so much to ask for.

Only an idiot would say that one cannot support the war without fighting in it.

I can see this is hitting a sore spot for you. Eh?

Especially THIS war, but really ANY war. It is patently absurd, and merely childish to make such a piquant claim.

Blah blah, you gonna explain why it's so absurd?

We have a volunteer force, but it is a force with specific guidelines for those who join. These guidelines narrow the field considerably. If one is a 45 year old man, he is not in a position to just "join up". If the man happens to be over a certain weight, or under a certain height he falls outside the requirements to join.

So, by your illogic, a man who is INELIGIBLE to join and serve should be told he isn't allowed to have an opinion!!!

Thank you for insight, what on earth would we do without it? Learn how to READ before you attempt your little commentary. I said, in the very first post, ASSUMING YOU ARE ABLE TO ENLIST.

Can you read that mobile? Is that legible for you? Would you like some assistance?


Still, besides your childishness...

This system, the American system, is created to allow the freedom and liberty to make the choice of what one will support REGARDLESS of one's service. Serving in the military is NOT required in this country... or perhaps you are unaware of that?

No I wasn't aware of that, thank god you were able to point that out to me! What would we do without you! Never leave us.

Just because military service isn't required, does not negate that fact that we are a nation full of hypocrites and lazy twats, including yourself if you are of age and healthy enough to fight.


Additionally, we are set up so that the civilian authorities control the military. It is ALSO not a requirement for civilian government officials to have served in the military. And THAT is by design, as well.

You people reveal a stupidity about our system, a stupidity about logic and a stupidity about our military that is beyond belief.

For someone who not only can't read, you do seem to posess an amazing psychic ability of what I know over the internet. How do you do it? Really? I'm serious, how did you get to be so smart? Your wisdom is truly overwhelming.


Still, I would donate money for you all to be shipped to an Al Qaieda training camp so that you can take up arms against the USA. After all, if you don't support this war, why haven't you volunteered to join the forces that are fighting to destroy the USA???

Now there's a lesson in logic. If I don't support this war, that automatically means I support the forces against the USA...Christ.


Of course, it is pretty sure that they would just kill you as soon as you got to those camps. And I firmly support their right to kill you, each and every one of you. After all, those Al Qaieda guys are just living up to their convictions, right? Shouldn't you be happy that they are ready to kill you since they are standing up for what they believe.

*in awe*


Gosh, I'm surprised you all have not just committed suicide so that you can help those poor misunderstood Al Qaieda guys out!!

So, please. Have the courage of YOUR convictions, will ya?

Do you offer personal consultations? I'd like for you to teach me everything you know about logic, psychic ability and everything elese that makes you such a genius, please? I'd pay you!

a lil off topic, but:

This question made me think about the idea of "supporting the troops." Exactly how does one support the troops? And how does one not support the troops?

Support the troops is clever propaganda, and taken at it's word you cannot be against the war but for the troops at the same time. Makes no sense.

If you (not specifically you, Optimus) can support our troops but don't support the war or have never served in the military yourself, other people can support the war without joining the military. It's two sides to the same coin.

What you're saying is:

If (person 1) can (support A) but does not (support B) or has never (experienced C), other people can (support B) without (experiencing C).

is akin to:

If (person 1) can support eating burritos but does not support eating tacos or has never experienced eating escargo, other people can support eating tacos without experiencing escargo.

See what I'm saying?

These things are all different:

- supporting troops
- supporting war
- serving in the military

See what I'm saying?
No. I don't think you understand what I meant.

Only an idiot would say that one cannot support the war without fighting in it.

Especially THIS war, but really ANY war. It is patently absurd, and merely childish to make such a piquant claim.

We have a volunteer force, but it is a force with specific guidelines for those who join. These guidelines narrow the field considerably. If one is a 45 year old man, he is not in a position to just "join up". If the man happens to be over a certain weight, or under a certain height he falls outside the requirements to join.

So, by your illogic, a man who is INELIGIBLE to join and serve should be told he isn't allowed to have an opinion!!!

Still, besides your childishness...

This system, the American system, is created to allow the freedom and liberty to make the choice of what one will support REGARDLESS of one's service. Serving in the military is NOT required in this country... or perhaps you are unaware of that?

Additionally, we are set up so that the civilian authorities control the military. It is ALSO not a requirement for civilian government officials to have served in the military. And THAT is by design, as well.

You people reveal a stupidity about our system, a stupidity about logic and a stupidity about our military that is beyond belief.

Still, I would donate money for you all to be shipped to an Al Qaieda training camp so that you can take up arms against the USA. After all, if you don't support this war, why haven't you volunteered to join the forces that are fighting to destroy the USA???

Of course, it is pretty sure that they would just kill you as soon as you got to those camps. And I firmly support their right to kill you, each and every one of you. After all, those Al Qaieda guys are just living up to their convictions, right? Shouldn't you be happy that they are ready to kill you since they are standing up for what they believe.

Gosh, I'm surprised you all have not just committed suicide so that you can help those poor misunderstood Al Qaieda guys out!!

So, please. Have the courage of YOUR convictions, will ya?

Am I by chance addressing someone who dresses up and pretends to fight wars in his spare time?:)

I think I have worked out who you are.

In any case i kind of agree with you.

Orwell said "we sleep safe in our beds because rough men are willing to do violence on our behalf."

Or something like that..

Cant all be soldiers.

Why does someone's opinions of a war have to be either/or?

An entire country may support the war, but they can't all participate. Or, is that too obvious?

Exactly the kind of response I'd expect from a man who supports the war. Feeling a bit incongruent? Turn it around, and put the focus elsewhere.

So according to you, in your infinite wisdom, I only have the right to pontificate on the impacts of war if I have fought in one? Did everyone hear that? I just want this shimmering bit of brilliance to register for everyone.

You can not talk about the damaging impacts of war until you have fought in one. Got it? Because everybody knows, you can only understand the impacts of war from fighting in one, common sense isn't enough, the general knowledge of the bloody muders isn't enough, the horrifying pictures of the damage done isn't enough, witnessing the after effects of a loved one fighting in a war isn't enough, YOU HAVE TO HAVE FOUGHT IN ONE IN ORDER TO UNDERSTAND IT.

What exactly compels you to be so snarky in your responses? I think Dgr poses a perfectly reasonable question. There's another side to the experience that doesn't consist of blood, horrifying pictures, and post traumatic stress. That side includes the satisfaction of missions well accomplished - the experience of meeting people who genuinely appreciate what your country has done for them - being a part of historic democratic elections that were unimaginable even four years ago. There's little things that you experience every single day that many people would like to just blow off as sappy, silly, or just plain unimportant. I'm an Afghanistan vet. I saw a lot of shitty things - but I also saw a lot of inspiring things. Take it for what it's worth.

Are there any other policy decisions that should require active participation before one is privileged to hold an opinion on them, or is it just the war that you don't support in Iraq? Would you like to live in a country that required such participation in order to hold an opinion?

I wouldn't - and the America that I served on Active Duty and continue to serve as I transition into the National Guard is certainly not such a place. ;)

****in A, Shawn. ****in A. :nice:

Come on, Optimus

I'm still offering that one way trip to Al Qaieda so you can fulfill your non-support of the war. Why aren't you Fighting, hypocrite?

I'm sure we can raise all kinds of money to send all such traitors "over there".





(Hey Dogberry... wanna go to a REAL message board? If so, I have a place you might like)

Come on, Optimus

I'm still offering that one way trip to Al Qaieda so you can fulfill your non-support of the war. Why aren't you Fighting, hypocrite?

I'm sure we can raise all kinds of money to send all such traitors "over there".





(Hey Dogberry... wanna go to a REAL message board? If so, I have a place you might like)


Considering the damage done to this country by the Iraq war, and how it was 100% needless and sold on pure lies, I'm starting to think those that are for the continued destruction of this nation through this kind of crap are the real traitors, if you're going to go there. That would make you the traitor. Now get the **** out of our country.

Considering the damage done to this country by the Iraq war, and how it was 100% needless and sold on pure lies, I'm starting to think those that are for the continued destruction of this nation through this kind of crap are the real traitors, if you're going to go there. That would make you the traitor. Now get the **** out of our country.

Exactly. You're probably one of the more nationalistic members here Mobile, you are such a great American, and such a true patrioit - then get off of your ass and get over to Iraq you f-ing coward.

What exactly compels you to be so snarky in your responses? I think Dgr poses a perfectly reasonable question. There's another side to the experience that doesn't consist of blood, horrifying pictures, and post traumatic stress. That side includes the satisfaction of missions well accomplished - the experience of meeting people who genuinely appreciate what your country has done for them - being a part of historic democratic elections that were unimaginable even four years ago. There's little things that you experience every single day that many people would like to just blow off as sappy, silly, or just plain unimportant. I'm an Afghanistan vet. I saw a lot of shitty things - but I also saw a lot of inspiring things. Take it for what it's worth.

And I completely respect you for that. You are being consistent with what you believe in, which is far more than I can say for most of the people here.

Look guys, this is fairly simple. Belief is a prerequisite to action. If I believe in earning money myself to support myself, I'm not going to be comfortable with the idea of sending someone else of to a job to work for me. But that's just me.

If you believe in something, yet are unwilling to take action, then there is something preventing you from taking action. Most of the time, it's an excuse. And what this county is, is a country of excusers.

"But I have a job. I can't fight for what I believe in."

"But I won't be able to see my kids for a long time. I can't fight for what I believe in."

"But I can give up my new big screen TV, and my new boat. I can't fight for what I believe in."

"But I'm not tough enough."

"But, but, but..."

And if something prevents you from taking action for what you believe in, than how strongly can that belief be? And that is my point.

Can you really, truly say you support this war and at the same time - refuse to fight?

ou're probably one of the more nationalistic members here Mobile, you are such a great American, and such a true patrioit - then get off of your ass and get over to Iraq you f-ing coward.


Come on, hypoctrite. Why aren't YOU fighting to kill those Americans you hate so much.

Come on, hypoctrite. Why aren't YOU fighting to kill those Americans you hate so much.

Because I don't hate Americans, jackass. Why aren't you over there fighting for your beloved corrupt government?

And I completely respect you for that. You are being consistent with what you believe in, which is far more than I can say for most of the people here.

Look guys, this is fairly simple. Belief is a prerequisite to action. If I believe in earning money myself to support myself, I'm not going to be comfortable with the idea of sending someone else of to a job to work for me. But that's just me.

If you believe in something, yet are unwilling to take action, then there is something preventing you from taking action. Most of the time, it's an excuse. And what this county is, is a country of excusers.

"But I have a job. I can't fight for what I believe in."

"But I won't be able to see my kids for a long time. I can't fight for what I believe in."

"But I can give up my new big screen TV, and my new boat. I can't fight for what I believe in."

"But I'm not tough enough."

"But, but, but..."

And if something prevents you from taking action for what you believe in, than how strongly can that belief be? And that is my point.

Can you really, truly say you support this war and at the same time - refuse to fight?

What precisely are you doing to support your anti-war perspective? Obviously, this is a forum where most of us prefer to remain somewhat anonymous, but are you leading the charge anywhere in regards to stopping the war? Or are you just complaining on the internet?

Do you see how that question is relevant? I don't expect you to demonstrate that you're an influential cog in the wheel of leftist politics - but if your beliefs are as strong as you feel those of your idealogical opposites should be, then you must be quite a player in anti-war circles. Unless you have significantally uprooted your own life - leaving school, job, or family in order to advance your cause in the movement, then I'd say that it appears that your beliefs aren't particularly strong either. If weekend flag waving and NASCAR National Anthems don't count for people you disagree with, then I hardly see where weekend picketing and internet arguing counts for you.

I think Cindy Sheehan is a good example - I don't agree with her at all, and I think that she's wrong to do what she's done "in Casey's name", but she is a great example of somebody who has stuck to her beliefs, and left her good name, marriage, job, and life behind in pursuit of them.

Maybe you're a mover and shaker in the movement. I don't know. But if you're not, can you really and truly say you oppose this war - and at the same time, refuse to sacrifice while standing against it? Have you made a sacrifice relevant to the one that you're demanding from those you oppose?

I'm interested in your perspective. I hope you take it that way, and not as an attack, because it's certainly not intended that way. :)

I'm hearing a lot of people tear into the strawman that "you don't have to participate in a war to have an opinion about it".

We all know that; it has become far too painfully obvious in America.

We're not talking about the rightness or wrongness of the war. We're talking about how people who claim the war is right should lend veracity to their convictions. For a grown, healthy man the answer is obvious: by helping to fight in the war.

It would be like me saying that "logically, I can support right of citizens to own guns and still vote to eliminate a citizen's right to own guns." Technically that's true, but in the real world it makes me either a) a hypocrite b) an idiot or c) both

People can offer their "logical" explanations and talk about ad hominem fallacies and all the other classroom crap, but here's what's going to happen back here in Realitysville: America's enlistment rate is going to continue to drop because of this spoiled, idiotic attitude that war can be a 100% spectator sport for the folks back home. Yeah, every grown man can sit at home and "support" the war by mouthing platitudes on an internet message board and somehow America will still somehow magically retain her military superiority.

It's just more of that pernicious and all too typical American entitlement attitude- "someone else will take care of it".

It's a ridiculous, cowardly attitude and everybody knows it, they are just happy because for once they can hide behind an intellectual argument.

"it's illogical to expect me to fight in a war that I claim to support. That's an ad hominem."

Whatever.

What precisely are you doing to support your anti-war perspective?

Shawn, I am not anti-war. I used to be though. Unfortunately, being anti-war is just too idealistic. I believe in defense as a LAST resort. And, I have to be defending what I believe in. If it means military action, so be it. But it's a last, last last resort, when all other options have been tried and failed.

Sheehan belives in bringing all the troops home NOW. I don't. I'd love to see them come home now, but that's a pretty irresponsible position, because we broke it, now we need to fix it. I'm for bringing the troops home ASAP however.

People who don't support the war are presumably doing exactly what they should be doing: not fighting in it.

There's absolutely nothing contradictory or analogous about it.

I'm hearing a lot of people tear into the strawman that "you don't have to participate in a war to have an opinion about it".

We all know that; it has become far too painfully obvious in America.

We're not talking about the rightness or wrongness of the war. We're talking about how people who claim the war is right should lend veracity to their convictions. For a grown, healthy man the answer is obvious: by helping to fight in the war.

It would be like me saying that "logically, I can support right of citizens to own guns and still vote to eliminate a citizen's right to own guns." Technically that's true, but in the real world it makes me either a) a hypocrite b) an idiot or c) both

People can offer their "logical" explanations and talk about ad hominem fallacies and all the other classroom crap, but here's what's going to happen back here in Realitysville: America's enlistment rate is going to continue to drop because of this spoiled, idiotic attitude that war can be a 100% spectator sport for the folks back home. Yeah, every grown man can sit at home and "support" the war by mouthing platitudes on an internet message board and somehow America will still somehow magically retain her military superiority.

It's just more of that pernicious and all too typical American entitlement attitude- "someone else will take care of it".

It's a ridiculous, cowardly attitude and everybody knows it, they are just happy because for once they can hide behind an intellectual argument.

"it's illogical to expect me to fight in a war that I claim to support. That's an ad hominem."

Whatever.

Well said. Since when is suggesting a little consistency ad hominem?

Rasdrake, the enlistment is dropping because young men are either confused or don't trust the government.

I would really hate to try to tell any of the people who, during WW2, planted victory gardens and recycled tin and rubber tires and made the best of rationing and bought war bonds, or worked with the USO that they, simply by NOT being in combat, were not supportive of the war.

Would you like to try to tell them that?

People who don't support the war are presumably doing exactly what they should be doing: not fighting in it.

There's absolutely nothing contradictory or analogous about it.

It's absolutely contradictory.

However, your view makes it mighty easy for those who disagree, doesn't it? People who have a perspective that supports the war have to uproot, leave everything behind, and go fight, or else they're cowards. In the meantime, those who don't share that perspective simply have to sit back and take the "piss off" position.

The argument presented as I read it is one that is about beliefs - i.e., if an individual believes in the war, then they should be jumping up to leave their families, businesses, and lifestyle to enlist and fight. Why doesn't the same hold true for those who believe the opposite? If their beliefs are so strong, why shouldn't they be expected to make a sacrifice relevant to those they expect others on the opposite end of the political spectrum to make?

Blah...

DHM, I think you and I were both in Hawaii at about the same time in 2003. We should have gone down to O'Tooles in Honolulu and shot the breeze over a draft Harp's. We'd probably have agreed on more than either of us believe.

:nice:

All I have to do is enlist in the reserve and do some lame job right? Is that enough of a contributiion for me to take the higher moral ground? Or do I have actually KILL somebody. Killing would be easy, I'd have no problem doing that. What about the other 60% of the military that isn't involved in combat operations, are they cowards too? Are they allowed the privilege of an opinion eventhough they'll probably never draw their weapons?

It's absolutely contradictory.

However, your view makes it mighty easy for those who disagree, doesn't it? People who have a perspective that supports the war have to uproot, leave everything behind, and go fight, or else they're cowards. In the meantime, those who don't share that perspective simply have to sit back and take the "piss off" position.

The argument presented as I read it is one that is about beliefs - i.e., if an individual believes in the war, then they should be jumping up to leave their families, businesses, and lifestyle to enlist and fight. Why doesn't the same hold true for those who believe the opposite? If their beliefs are so strong, why shouldn't they be expected to make a sacrifice relevant to those they expect others on the opposite end of the political spectrum to make?

Blah...

DHM, I think you and I were both in Hawaii at about the same time in 2003. We should have gone down to O'Tooles in Honolulu and shot the breeze over a draft Harp's. We'd probably have agreed on more than either of us believe.

:nice:

Yeah, if I recall correctly you were at Schoffield when I was at K-bay.

I know we would have agreed on more than it seems here. I'm a lot less political in real life, and less bleeding-heart than I seem.

Of course it would have been fraternizing, since I was a lowly E4 ;) But that's a risk I would have been willing to take, haha (not like I haven't tipped plenty of mugs with the O's before)

In fact, the reason I mentioned this topic again in another thread a couple days ago is because I've been thinking a lot about whether or not to go back into the military when I finish school (which is still years off).

Personally, although I opposed the war in Iraq, I am one of the few on this board who is all for targeted strikes against Iran, if not full-scale war. Iran is a worthy target.

So it is slightly irritating to me to hear certain people who were happy to cheer on the sidelines for war in Iraq, and castigate those of us who questioned the wisdom of making Hussein's regime a primary target, now say that we should pack up our toys and go home because it would be too hard to step up to Iran. Gas prices might go up.

I get the feeling that *some* people were only willing to "support" the war in Iraq because they knew it would never affect them personally. Now that a real fight is looming on the horizon they are showing their true colors.

maybe my perception is skewed. I fully admit to having an emotional and irrational view on this subject.

Yeah, if I recall correctly you were at Schoffield when I was at K-bay.

I know we would have agreed on more than it seems here. I'm a lot less political in real life, and less bleeding-heart than I seem.

Of course it would have been fraternizing, since I was a lowly E4 ;) But that's a risk I would have been willing to take, haha (not like I haven't tipped plenty of mugs with the O's before)

In fact, the reason I mentioned this topic again in another thread a couple days ago is because I've been thinking a lot about whether or not to go back into the military when I finish school (which is still years off).

Personally, although I opposed the war in Iraq, I am one of the few on this board who is all for targeted strikes against Iran, if not full-scale war. Iran is a worthy target.

So it is slightly irritating to me to hear certain people who were happy to cheer on the sidelines for war in Iraq, and castigate those of us who questioned the wisdom of making Hussein's regime a primary target, now say that we should pack up our toys and go home because it would be too hard to step up to Iran. Gas prices might go up.

I get the feeling that *some* people were only willing to "support" the war in Iraq because they knew it would never affect them personally. Now that a real fight is looming on the horizon they are showing their true colors.

maybe my perception is skewed. I fully admit to having an emotional and irrational view on this subject.

Yes, your perception is skewed.

maybe my perception is skewed. I fully admit to having an emotional and irrational view on this subject.

A bit emotional, but not irrational

Side-by-side there is no comparison between the threat posed by Iran in 2006 vs Iraq in 2003 ... check out the quality of the intel about Iran's facilities and WMD programs compared to the made-up and exaggerated garbage that was shoved down our collective throats by the BA in 2002 - 2003

One of the problems with the so-called War on Terror is that the US citizens have not been asked to sacrifice or step up to the plate

There are countless ways that people on the home front can support a war without wearing boots and lugging a rifle on the front lines, in fact it takes dozens of people to support a single front line soldier.

If there was a real threat to the US, there would be long lines of volunteers at the recruiting centers. Historically that required an actual attack on us, not trumped up threats, administration propaganda campaigns, or verbal saber rattling from 1/2 way around the world.

I would really hate to try to tell any of the people who, during WW2, planted victory gardens and recycled tin and rubber tires and made the best of rationing and bought war bonds, or worked with the USO that they, simply by NOT being in combat, were not supportive of the war.

Would you like to try to tell them that?

I'm going to repost this as it got lost on the tail end of the last page and I think it's pretty applicable.

Maybe we don't still plant victory gardens, but to say that there is no support for a war without the actual carrying of a firearm is, in my opinion, a bit of tunnel vision.

Yeah, if I recall correctly you were at Schoffield when I was at K-bay.

I know we would have agreed on more than it seems here. I'm a lot less political in real life, and less bleeding-heart than I seem.

Of course it would have been fraternizing, since I was a lowly E4 ;) But that's a risk I would have been willing to take, haha (not like I haven't tipped plenty of mugs with the O's before)

In fact, the reason I mentioned this topic again in another thread a couple days ago is because I've been thinking a lot about whether or not to go back into the military when I finish school (which is still years off).

Personally, although I opposed the war in Iraq, I am one of the few on this board who is all for targeted strikes against Iran, if not full-scale war. Iran is a worthy target.

So it is slightly irritating to me to hear certain people who were happy to cheer on the sidelines for war in Iraq, and castigate those of us who questioned the wisdom of making Hussein's regime a primary target, now say that we should pack up our toys and go home because it would be too hard to step up to Iran. Gas prices might go up.

I get the feeling that *some* people were only willing to "support" the war in Iraq because they knew it would never affect them personally. Now that a real fight is looming on the horizon they are showing their true colors.

maybe my perception is skewed. I fully admit to having an emotional and irrational view on this subject.

Off topic, but yeah. I agree with you on Iran, and was a little suprised when I saw your perspective on that other thread, but I've gotten kinda used to reading one thread where I can't believe where you're coming from, and then agreeing with you completely in the next one.

I was an "O" at Schofield, but I like to think that my four years of enlisted time prior to commissioning kept me somewhat grounded in reality. A lot of my prior enlisted peers left the Active Army at the same time that I did, and that transition from "E" to "O" had a major part in it. Life as an "O" is just different.

Are you thinking of going "O" when you finish school?

I'm going to repost this as it got lost on the tail end of the last page and I think it's pretty applicable.

Maybe we don't still plant victory gardens, but to say that there is no support for a war without the actual carrying of a firearm is, in my opinion, a bit of tunnel vision.

Full agreement, but you're just a woman who can't fight anyway, therefore, you are entitled to an opinion on the matter.

Full agreement, but you're just a woman who can't fight anyway, therefore, you are entitled to an opinion on the matter.

Wow, I really hope that it was just that your giggle font wasn't working there. Because if I really had to believe that you meant what you just said; I'd have to hunt you down, and after shoving the list of American women who have lost their lives in the Iraqi war down your throat, shoot you right in the head.

edit to add: you know what, maybe I'm just reading this wrong; he says "you're just a woman who can't fight", *(with which, big surprise, I took a bit of umbrage), but then he goes on to say, "therefore you are entitled to an opinion". Now, the two statements are incongruous, and when I first read it, I was thinking that he made a typo and the inference was that I was not entitiled to an opinion on the matter. But, in re-examining the post, I think I might have to reserve my judgement.

Because just as a PS, as a general overview of the whole question? If you honestly believe that the people who are not able to weild a gun are not people who can support a war, not only are you greatly mistaken, but you might actually be smoking crack.

Are you thinking of going "O" when you finish school?

I want to be a medical officer. I'm applying to medical school regardless of whether I go back into the military, but several factors are persuading me to really pursue military medicine. (and no, my main reasons have nothing to do with Iran or any geo-political theories).

A bit emotional, but not irrational

Side-by-side there is no comparison between the threat posed by Iran in 2006 vs Iraq in 2003 ... check out the quality of the intel about Iran's facilities and WMD programs compared to the made-up and exaggerated garbage that was shoved down our collective throats by the BA in 2002 - 2003

One of the problems with the so-called War on Terror is that the US citizens have not been asked to sacrifice or step up to the plate


Thank you. This is my entire point. You obviously stated it much more succinctly than I could have.



There are countless ways that people on the home front can support a war without wearing boots and lugging a rifle on the front lines, in fact it takes dozens of people to support a single front line soldier.



That's true and I meant to answer that question directly but I forgot.

Yes, there are many ways to support a war effort without being in uniform (even for guys) but I personally don't see any of them actually occurring right now.



If there was a real threat to the US, there would be long lines of volunteers at the recruiting centers. Historically that required an actual attack on us, not trumped up threats, administration propaganda campaigns, or verbal saber rattling from 1/2 way around the world.

Eh, that's debatable. Just as people can tend to exaggerate a minor (or non-existent) threat in their minds, they can also tend to ignore a real threat staring them right in the face. Fear motivates both reactions.

Maybe we don't still plant victory gardens, but to say that there is no support for a war without the actual carrying of a firearm is, in my opinion, a bit of tunnel vision.


I never said there can't be, just that I haven't seen it. In what ways are people "supporting" this war? Hell, a victory garden would be nice.

I used to have a copy of the old 1942 government propaganda film "Hemp for Victory". Sounds good to me :p

Full agreement, but you're just a woman who can't fight anyway, therefore, you are entitled to an opinion on the matter

Now you're comin' around. :nice:

Wow, I really hope that it was just that your giggle font wasn't working there. Because if I really had to believe that you meant what you just said; I'd have to hunt you down, and after shoving the list of American women who have lost their lives in the Iraqi war down your throat, shoot you right in the head.

I think 86dude was lampooning some of my statements. Blame me. In fact, just to add more fuel to this thread I'll state another obnoxious opinion of mine: Women have no place on a battlefield whatsoever. Just my personal opinion. I don't mean to diminish the service of those who are already engaged.

I agree woman have no place at all on the battle feild ,except nursing in mash units . They get killed and cause men to get killed . They are not worth a darn in hand to hand combat . And they have certain hygene concerns that can be real ugly for them and the poor man who has to be in close conact with them ,like a fox hole with no bathroom . of course i let out the secret that there is a difference in the sex's .

I think 86dude was lampooning some of my statements. Blame me. In fact, just to add more fuel to this thread I'll state another obnoxious opinion of mine: Women have no place on a battlefield whatsoever. Just my personal opinion. I don't mean to diminish the service of those who are already engaged.

Just out of curiosity, why, in your opinion, do women not belong on the battlefield? (and really, I'm not going to beat you over the head with a copy of Ms. magazine), I'm just curious.

According to the height and weight requirements of the Armed Forces, a vast majority of women fall within the norm. It can't be intelligence, as test scores for women of the ages between 18-25 generally surpass that of their male counterparts.

It can't be the lack of propensity for violence; most studies show that violence is a human trait, not a gender-based trait.

Personally, I'd rather stay at home and plant a Victory Garden, but I'd damn sure make sure that everyone understood that I was, in fact, a part of the war effort in doing so.

Optimous,

Because I don't hate Americans, jackass. Why aren't you over there fighting for your beloved corrupt government?

You just aren't very smart are you?

My calling you a hypocrite for NOT fighting agaisnt the country you hate so much is NO different than YOU saying that those who aren't vol. to fight have no right to support the war.

No, you just aren't very smart at all.

Just out of curiosity, why, in your opinion, do women not belong on the battlefield? (and really, I'm not going to beat you over the head with a copy of Ms. magazine), I'm just curious.

According to the height and weight requirements of the Armed Forces, a vast majority of women fall within the norm. It can't be intelligence, as test scores for women of the ages between 18-25 generally surpass that of their male counterparts.

It can't be the lack of propensity for violence; most studies show that violence is a human trait, not a gender-based trait.

Personally, I'd rather stay at home and plant a Victory Garden, but I'd damn sure make sure that everyone understood that I was, in fact, a part of the war effort in doing so.


Because even a very small man is stronger than the largest of woman , excep when shes having PMS . A man an take a licking and keep going , not so with most woman . They are fragile .

Optimous,

You just aren't very smart are you?

No, I'm not. We've already established that earlier.


My calling you a hypocrite for NOT fighting agaisnt the country you hate so much is NO different than YOU saying that those who aren't vol. to fight have no right to support the war.

Problem is, I don't hate this country. I love this country. So, you can take your absurdity and shove it up your ass. And I'm pointing out that men who are perfectly healthy and able to fight yet are not...I am questioning that level of "support."

No, you just aren't very smart at all.

Not as smart as you, that's for sure.

I agree woman have no place at all on the battle feild ,except nursing in mash units . They get killed and cause men to get killed . They are not worth a darn in hand to hand combat . And they have certain hygene concerns that can be real ugly for them and the poor man who has to be in close conact with them ,like a fox hole with no bathroom . of course i let out the secret that there is a difference in the sex's .

Are you f*cking kidding me? Are you trying to imply that the off chance that there might be menstrual blood in a fox hole with no bathroom is more offensive than feeces in a fox hole where there is no bathroom? Is this a joke?

Women menstuate once a month. Humans evacuate their bowels, (on an average), of once or twice a day, and you are honestly going to tell me that that once a month tablespoon or two of blood is somehow more offensive?

And, really, "not worth a darn in hand to hand combat"? Oh, my God! You have no idea what any person can and will do with the proper training. I don't have to have steriod biceps to have the techinical know-how to throw my opponent and cut his jugular. That's not combat; it's physics and good knife work. (and I'm way smart enough to understand physics.)

Because even a very small man is stronger than the largest of woman , excep when shes having PMS . A man an take a licking and keep going , not so with most woman . They are fragile .

Hey, just because you're fragile, don't lay your shortcomings on me. You want to be the fragile delicate flower, great, but don't you ever, dare to try to lay your shortcomings on me or anyone else of our gender.

Just out of curiosity, why, in your opinion, do women not belong on the battlefield? (and really, I'm not going to beat you over the head with a copy of Ms. magazine), I'm just curious.


Studies are well and good, but from my personal experience in the military women simply don't carry their weight.

The military culture functions on a macho, I-can-out-do-the-next-guy mentality. You have to have that mentality to forget how shitty the work actually is. We used to have chain-running "contests" where we would see who could run the most aircraft chains across the flight-line at once. Talk about a shitty "game". But that's what made us drunken, disgruntled grease-monkeys able to get our job done. Women generally want no part of that shit and even if they do it just somehow doesn't work. There are of course exceptions. There were a couple women co-workers I met who I'd much rather work with then a few of the guys I knew. But as a rule women simply don't fit in.

I know that is as politically incorrect as it gets but four years of active-duty service alongside many women did nothing to change my mind. They are not as physically strong as men and typically not nearly motivated to do hard physical work, that's a basic fact of reality.

Not to mention they also have it a lot rougher than men if taken prisoner.



It can't be the lack of propensity for violence; most studies show that violence is a human trait, not a gender-based trait.


haha, I'll take the rest of your statistics at face value but not this one. That is just nonsense. Women do not share the same propensity for violence as men. I don't need a study to tell me that.



Personally, I'd rather stay at home and plant a Victory Garden, but I'd damn sure make sure that everyone understood that I was, in fact, a part of the war effort in doing so.

Of course it is part of the war effort. Women's domestic role during wars where they were not active combatants has been immeasurable. There is real honor in maintaining a household or a factory or a business while your husband/brother/partner/whoever is fighting for some God-forsaken piece of dirt halfway around the world. (and I'm not saying that women can't do all that stuff in peacetime either, I'm just trying to ameliorate the perception of misogyny that is no doubt coming across in my posts)

Are you f*cking kidding me? Are you trying to imply that the off chance that there might be menstrual blood in a fox hole with no bathroom is more offensive than feeces in a fox hole where there is no bathroom? Is this a joke?

Women menstuate once a month. Humans evacuate their bowels, (on an average), of once or twice a day, and you are honestly going to tell me that that once a month tablespoon or two of blood is somehow more offensive?

And, really, "not worth a darn in hand to hand combat"? Oh, my God! You have no idea what any person can and will do with the proper training. I don't have to have steriod biceps to have the techinical know-how to throw my opponent and cut his jugular. That's not combat; it's physics and good knife work. (and I'm way smart enough to understand physics.)


Men don't shit continualy , but woman do bleed that way . Bad example. i was trying to be nice, and hear you go making me have to get graphic .

You may think your very smart, but Igot news for you , the mad dog arab is not going to stand still while you do all your magic . He will out fight you with speed and strength . Also, if thats all you bleed every month, you have a bad uterous .

Hey, just because you're fragile, don't lay your shortcomings on me. You want to be the fragile delicate flower, great, but don't you ever, dare to try to lay your shortcomings on me or anyone else of our gender.


You have watched one too many Zena shows . That is fiction .:nonono:

It's absolutely contradictory.

However, your view makes it mighty easy for those who disagree, doesn't it? People who have a perspective that supports the war have to uproot, leave everything behind, and go fight, or else they're cowards. In the meantime, those who don't share that perspective simply have to sit back and take the "piss off" position.

The argument presented as I read it is one that is about beliefs - i.e., if an individual believes in the war, then they should be jumping up to leave their families, businesses, and lifestyle to enlist and fight. Why doesn't the same hold true for those who believe the opposite? If their beliefs are so strong, why shouldn't they be expected to make a sacrifice relevant to those they expect others on the opposite end of the political spectrum to make?


Great points Shawn. It comes down to this, people are creatures of comfort. I personally try to be as consistent with my beliefs as I can, I think about it a lot, and I think about what are the consequences for having certain beliefs?

Right now, there are millions of people who support this war. They support the cause, they believe it is the right thing to do, and they support our governments actions. This particular war has major consequences. For example, there ARE going to be consequences of invading Iraq based on a mountain of lies. There has already been lethal consequences of our actions. Thousands of our soldiers have lost their lives. Thousands of innocent Iraqis have died. Who knows what kind of retaliation is going to happen in the future because of this. So I'm pretty sure everyone here can agree that this war has some serious consequences. And these consequences are the burden of the supporters. So, the supporters have to ask themselves, "How much do I support this? And what is it exactly that I am supporting? Do I believe in it enough to fight for it myself? If not, why not? Am I ok with the consequences?"

I personally feel that if the consequences are this severe, and when they can ultimately affect your future and our childrens future, you need to be completely 100% on what your position is. It's not a matter of convenience, it is certainly NOT easy to be completely congruent on something like this.

My problem is with the government officials who supported this war, yet wouldn't step foot onto battleground, or send their children to fight. I have a problem with people who support this immoral war based on lies, who refuse to fight, and who then accuse people who do NOT support this war as being anti-american. Now that certainly is an easy position to take, isn't it.

Only an idiot would say that one cannot support the war without fighting in it.

Rhetoric, no substance, at all.


Especially THIS war, but really ANY war.

Rhetoric no substance.


It is patently absurd, and merely childish to make such a piquant claim.

Rhetoric, notta on the substance.


We have a volunteer force, but it is a force with specific guidelines for those who join. These guidelines narrow the field considerably. If one is a 45 year old man, he is not in a position to just "join up". If the man happens to be over a certain weight, or under a certain height he falls outside the requirements to join.

Alright, at least a little something..... So, if you do fall within the standards and truly believe its worth sending others to die for, you, at least by my moralistic standards (which im pretty sure is shared by most americans) should be willing to put yourself on the lines. Otherwise your just a hypocrite willing to send others to their death, but not wanting to go yourself.

Besides, if your over or under weight its pretty damn easy to get in the target weight range. Its called working out, or eating. Take your pick.


So, by your illogic, a man who is INELIGIBLE to join and serve should be told he isn't allowed to have an opinion!!!

1st off--I find it hard to believe that theres no feasable position you could take due to physical ineligability to help with the war in Iraq.

2nd off--So long as the person makes it damn clear that they would fight if they could, then I suppose to a degree we can only take there word for it. Otherwise, their just hypocrites, like most people.


Still, besides your childishness...

Rhetoric!!!, and another personal attack.


This system, the American system, is created to allow the freedom and liberty to make the choice of what one will support REGARDLESS of one's service. Serving in the military is NOT required in this country...

Currently, but not in the past. But if a draft is reinstated (a depressing possibility as of now), then what is your stance. Besides, just because the US is set up that way, doesnt make you any less a hypocrite for wanting others to die for a cause you wont fight in....

.... There were a couple women co-workers I met who I'd much rather work with then a few of the guys I knew. But as a rule women simply don't fit in.

Okay, you admit that there are women who function as a part of your team just as well as their male counterparts. But you go on to say that, "as a rule, women don't fit it". Is that maybe because they were not welcome to fit in?

I guess the point I'm trying to make is that, in many archaic societies, women fought alongside their men, just as fiercely and with as much violence and skill as their male counterparts. In the society of the ancient Celts, women raised the shield and spear and sword along side their men, and they were a hairsbreadth away from driving the Romans into the sea

Tell me, truly, if your female counterparts had been welcomed, wholeheartedly, as part of your team, to recieve the training and the skills, would they have been sub-par?

I know that is as politically incorrect as it gets but four years of active-duty service alongside many women did nothing to change my mind. They are not as physically strong as men and typically not nearly motivated to do hard physical work, that's a basic fact of reality.

I once had a drill seargent tell me: "if you wait for me to tell you that you need to give 100%, then you don't know why you're here". (I wasn't actually a recruit; I was a young Air Force wife, taking a course, trying to understand what my husband was going through.), but I think that holds true to anyone, male or female.

Not to mention they also have it a lot rougher than men if taken prisoner.
Oh, please, not the whole, "rape in prison", thing. (like men aren't raped in prison....like 72% of all rape in prison isn't man on man.)



haha, I'll take the rest of your statistics at face value but not this one. That is just nonsense. Women do not share the same propensity for violence as men. I don't need a study to tell me that.

Oh, honey, I think it's really kind of cute and sweet that you actually believe that women do not have the same propensity for violence as men. Really, if that helps you go to bed each night with your girlfriend, well, then I'll not dissuade you. ;)



Of course it is part of the war effort. Women's domestic role during wars where they were not active combatants has been immeasurable. There is real honor in maintaining a household or a factory or a business while your husband/brother/partner/whoever is fighting for some God-forsaken piece of dirt halfway around the world. (and I'm not saying that women can't do all that stuff in peacetime either, I'm just trying to ameliorate the perception of misogyny that is no doubt coming across in my posts)

And the vast majority of women would rather not be in combat. (I suspect that the same could be true of men as well.), and they will be more than content to support the war front at home. I guess there are many ways of fighting the war, yeah?

Oh, please, not the whole, "rape in prison", thing. (like men aren't raped in prison....like 72% of all rape in prison isn't man on man.)
POW camps are a bit different than civilian prisons; a woman trapped in the former would be as endangered as an at-risk male in the latter, or worse.

You have watched one too many Zena shows . That is fiction .:nonono:


I think you didn't pay enough attention in physics class. It's not a matter of bulk, but leverage. If I can use any part of my body as a fulcrum, I can bring down anyone, regardless of height or mass. Once they're down, it's really a simple matter of immobilization and a quick cut to the carotid.

edit to add: and really, with the advent of modern warfare, the threat of hand to hand combat is almost nil. How many steriod muscles does it take to pull the trigger on an M-16?

BearStories, you've got a lot of fine history and statistics and social theory, but I have only my personal experience to offer.

The military, and especially a battlefield, is not the place to try and force men to change their social hierarchical paradigm to get in touch with their feminine side.

That is not what war or the military is about, and that was partially what bothered me so often in the military. At times it felt more like a politically correct job-welfare program than an organization meant to fight
and win wars. Such a mentality could wind up biting us in the ass if we ever have to put out a serious, massive, concerted war effort.

Oh, honey, I think it's really kind of cute and sweet that you actually believe that women do not have the same propensity for violence as men. Really, if that helps you go to bed each night with your girlfriend, well, then I'll not dissuade you

Haha, that occurred to me even as I wrote that. I'll concede that women might have the same propensity towards violence (or an even greater propensity in fact, especially given a social structure which carries no consequences for domestic violence committed by women against men), but they still have nowhere near the capacity to carry out violence as men, and that is what matters in a war. Not emotional vitriol, but physical capability.

Except maybe lesbians. They can be pretty hardcore.

I think it's obvious that women aren't allowed to serve in direct combat not just because they're supposedly inferior soldiers; it's also the discipline problem that would be created by having men & women in close quarters in the field, using unisex showers & foxholes, etc.

POW camps are a bit different than civilian prisons; a woman trapped in the former would be as endangered as an at-risk male in the latter, or worse.
Okay, I'll give you that one.........maybe. There's never been a situation where there have been enough women in combat to test that theory, now has there?

Any soldier that's ever been 'round women captured during combat is prolly pretty aware of it. :shrug:

Not good. :not:

I think it's obvious that women aren't allowed to serve in direct combat not just because they're supposedly inferior soldiers; it's also the discipline problem that would be created by having men & women in close quarters in the field, using unisex showers & foxholes, etc.

Well, honey, then I would submit to you that you've never been on an extended camping trip with women, but I understand the point you're trying to make.

BearStories, you've got a lot of fine history and statistics and social theory, but I have only my personal experience to offer.

The military, and especially a battlefield, is not the place to try and force men to change their social hierarchical paradigm to get in touch with their feminine side.

That is not what war or the military is about, and that was partially what bothered me so often in the military. At times it felt more like a politically correct job-welfare program than an organization meant to fight
and win wars. Such a mentality could wind up biting us in the ass if we ever have to put out a serious, massive, concerted war effort......


As much as it pains that little feminist inside me, (don't worry, I often beat her down with $400 shoes), I do, on a basic level, agree with you.

In our society, as it stands today, our Armed Forces will not function at their utmost efficiency with men and women fighting side by side. Is it right or wrong? I don't know; the Romans did still over run the Celts, (although I think that was because of superior weapons and tactics, not the fact the women fought alongside the men), but who knows?

The funniest part, to me, about this whole argument, is that, I'm just arguing the concept......I'd still rather plant a Victory Garden and maybe knit a scarf for our boys at the front than pick up an M-16.

.... Such a mentality could wind up biting us in the ass if we ever have to put out a serious, massive, concerted war effort....




Honey, really, I'm not picking on you, (okay, maybe I am, because this just made me laugh), but really, aren't we, right now, meant to be putting on a serious, massive, concerted war effort? Or is that little thing in the Gulf right now just meant to be some sort of play acting?

Well, honey, then I would submit to you that you've never been on an extended camping trip with women, but I understand the point you're trying to make.
^^ How many times have I offered to share a sleeping bag with you in the Sonoran?

I submit to you that such avocational excursions are neither typically permeated by the Sturm und Drang normative of live combat's cortisol-fueled survivalist milieu nor are they generally attended by the macho working class jarheads who fill out our military battalions. :not:

^^ How many times have I offered to share a sleeping bag with you in the Sonoran?

I submit to you that such avocational excursions are neither typically permeated by the same cortisol-fueled survivalist Sturm und Drang milieu as live combat nor are they generally attended by the macho working class jarheads who fill out our military battalions. :not:

Well, I would hope not as I would not welcome any one of them in my tent.

ps. sleeping bag? I'm there, baby!

(Hey Dogberry... wanna go to a REAL message board? If so, I have a place you might like)

LOL OK I am intrigued.

I've served in a combat zone. While I respect anyone who's worn the uniform at some point in their lives, in combat or in peacetime, the fact is there are people who just have other dreams about what they want to do with their lives.

I think it is more important that you have an informed opinion of war, as opposed to actual first hand experience. There are lots of smart people who can analyze the consequences of a military action, its effect on the economy, the morale of the US population, and liklihood of victory, without going down to a recruiting station and signing up. These people should be heard.

Why does someone's opinion of war have to be either/or?

Why does someone's opinion of war have to be either/or?

Because a matter of life or death is either/or. This isn't multiple choice. If it was suddenly mandatory that all who support the war must go and fight, I think a majority of those supporters would suddenly realize that their "support" wasn't so strong in the first place. I'm sure a lot of people would realize that real quick.

BearStories, you've got a lot of fine history and statistics and social theory, but I have only my personal experience to offer.

The military, and especially a battlefield, is not the place to try and force men to change their social hierarchical paradigm to get in touch with their feminine side.

That is not what war or the military is about, and that was partially what bothered me so often in the military. At times it felt more like a politically correct job-welfare program than an organization meant to fight
and win wars. Such a mentality could wind up biting us in the ass if we ever have to put out a serious, massive, concerted war effort.



Haha, that occurred to me even as I wrote that. I'll concede that women might have the same propensity towards violence (or an even greater propensity in fact, especially given a social structure which carries no consequences for domestic violence committed by women against men), but they still have nowhere near the capacity to carry out violence as men, and that is what matters in a war. Not emotional vitriol, but physical capability.



They just don't get it ! They have been pogrammed since kindergarden to think there is no difference in male and female . This is the GODESS SYNDROME . It is a tactic used by homos and it spills over into other aspects of lfe .

Woman may not be as violent as men, but they sure can be as deviant .

Bear Stories would make a good mahadeen warrior though, she loves talking about the throat slitting part of combat . Not too lady like ,I'd say ! :eek3:

Okay, I'll give you that one.........maybe. There's never been a situation where there have been enough women in combat to test that theory, now has there?


Oh yes there has ! A woman doctor was captured in Gulf War , [ and another woman was captured too and she was repeatably raped but I forgot the details about her .] But the doctor was raped also and beaten, but lied at first about it , [ because the lesbo bricade was upset it would hurt their cause concerning woman in military ,imo ] then knew it was wrong and finally came out with truth . She was in aircraft shot down . Use search engines to find info .

All this nonsense about women has derailed the thread.

How is a person in the armed forces in a support roll, a pretend soldier with a big mouth and not enough guts to enlist in the infantry, any more qualified to "support the war" than a civilian bomb builder in Oklahoma or someone purchasing a war bond?

This is just about the dumbest thread I've ever seen on DA. If you can fight in the war and not support it, then you can sure as hell support the war and not fight. This is just more obfuscated, anti-war rhetoric designed to place unfounded blame on half the population. It makes them feel superior and less guilty about their position.

This is just about the dumbest thread I've ever seen on DA.

Check some threads by this dude named 'thumper'.. (j/k thumper, i kid i kid).

If you can fight in the war and not support it,

I want everyone to think for a second (because thats all it should take), about how much logic this statement holds....

then you can sure as hell support the war and not fight.

And, this statement is again much like the first.

This is just more obfuscated, anti-war rhetoric designed to place unfounded blame on half the population. It makes them feel superior and less guilty about their position.

Someones projecting....

I find nothing wrong with Freedom & Libertys last post.

Honey, really, I'm not picking on you, (okay, maybe I am, because this just made me laugh), but really, aren't we, right now, meant to be putting on a serious, massive, concerted war effort? Or is that little thing in the Gulf right now just meant to be some sort of play acting?

God you're condescending, do you know that? If you'd bothered to pay atention to the first four pages of the thread before you decided to post your half-cocked rant to 86dude (who actually agrees with you, I'm sure), you might have noticed that this thread is actually all about the lack of a cohesive, stateside "war effort" on the part of many who claim to "support" the war.

Now do you have anything else to add besides another patronizing cybergiggle misdirected at a conversation you are apparently unable to follow?

God you're condescending, do you know that? If you'd bothered to pay atention to the first four pages of the thread before you decided to post your half-cocked rant to 86dude (who actually agrees with you, I'm sure), you might have noticed that this thread is actually all about the lack of a cohesive, stateside "war effort" on the part of many who claim to "support" the war.

Now do you have anything else to add besides another patronizing cybergiggle misdirected at a conversation you are apparently unable to follow?

Define "coheseive stateside war effort".

Well it sure as hell isn't going about your daily routine like nothing is happening, driving some gas-guzzling SUV with a "Freedom Isn't Free" sticker on your bumper. Not saying that you personally do that, but in general.

I read that you are building an ethanol still...that sort of thing is at least something. Localizing America's economy, reducing our dependence on oil, any step that leads us in that direction would be a contribution. people have to realize that as long as we're living in this globalized shitstorm and stay addcted to cheap, fast shit from other countries, we will have to play World Police in places like Iran and...well, not necessarily Iraq. But any place that genuinely upsets the apple cart.

Hell, dude, I don't know...I'm just a 27 year old douchebag who likes to run my keyboard. I'm as worthless as anybody when it come to "contributing to society".

I'm just looking for some clarity man. Seems to me a war should be team effort. WWII WAS a team effort, but America hasn't had a shock quite big enough motivate our population to a WWII style team effort, but when it happens god help the bad guys.

My grandmother used to put deicers on B-24's. It's rumored that she put them on at least one of the planes in the doolittle raid in 42. That's the kind of team effort I'm talking about and it will come win or lose. You won't see too much team effort from the boomers when that happens because they only give a shit about themselves, but today's youth is going to shine and rise to the call.

Ethanol Still=southern ingenuity. I'm still getting the pieces together but I hope to have something functional by fall. Need a drink? Just stick a rubber tube in your gas tank and slurp away! When homegrown gas gets popular it's going to open a whole big can of legal worms.

God you're condescending, do you know that? If you'd bothered to pay atention to the first four pages of the thread before you decided to post your half-cocked rant to 86dude (who actually agrees with you, I'm sure), you might have noticed that this thread is actually all about the lack of a cohesive, stateside "war effort" on the part of many who claim to "support" the war.

Now do you have anything else to add besides another patronizing cybergiggle misdirected at a conversation you are apparently unable to follow?

Let's see: I'm condescending and patronizing.....you forgot bitchy. I'm bitchy as well.

Back on topic please.

Hint: nothing to do with women.

I'm just looking for some clarity man. Seems to me a war should be team effort. WWII WAS a team effort, but America hasn't had a shock quite big enough motivate our population to a WWII style team effort, but when it happens god help the bad guys.

My grandmother used to put deicers on B-24's. It's rumored that she put them on at least one of the planes in the doolittle raid in 42. That's the kind of team effort I'm talking about and it will come win or lose. You won't see too much team effort from the boomers when that happens because they only give a shit about themselves, but today's youth is going to shine and rise to the call.


Well see, that's exactly what I'm talking about...you know more about it than me.


Ethanol Still=southern ingenuity. I'm still getting the pieces together but I hope to have something functional by fall. Need a drink? Just stick a rubber tube in your gas tank and slurp away! When homegrown gas gets popular it's going to open a whole big can of legal worms.

I need to find out more about this kind of shit. When I volunteered at a food co-op last year there were some cats there all into the bio-fuel/bio-diesel thing.....but I guess in reality I'm the one who's too wrapped up in my own life to bother with it.

Maybe that's why I tend to get heated in these sorts of conversations...because it reminds me of my failure to live up to my own standards.

Can you really drink ethanol fuel? I would've been on the bandwagon years ago!

Let's see: I'm condescending and patronizing.....you forgot bitchy. I'm bitchy as well.

No, just trying to be civil.

I find nothing wrong with Freedom & Libertys last post.

.....

His statement wasthe same as me saying that you can give 1 billion dollars to an anti-aids research foundation to be used any way they like, and not be supporting the anti-aids research foundation.

You are supporting a cause if you are activily helping it. Saying otherwise is absurd.

Can you really drink ethanol fuel? I would've been on the bandwagon years ago!


Yes, but you probably wouldn't want to drink very much at 180 proof. It's methyl alky hol or wood alcohol that will hurt you, blind you. A still, some bio mass, add yeast and poof. Well, there is a lot more to it than that but if all goes well I'll have the highway to myself in 6 months. Most newer cars should require no more modification than a chip at the very most. Carbureted cars will need some jet resizing. Good times. I'm hoping the cities will go broke first so that the cops can't afford to patrol in a car! Hot rodding days for me are going to be back again.

.....

His statement wasthe same as me saying that you can give 1 billion dollars to an anti-aids research foundation to be used any way they like, and not be supporting the anti-aids research foundation.

You are supporting a cause if you are activily helping it. Saying otherwise is absurd.

You arent making any sense.

This is just about the dumbest thread I've ever seen on DA. If you can fight in the war and not support it, then you can sure as hell support the war and not fight. This is just more obfuscated, anti-war rhetoric designed to place unfounded blame on half the population. It makes them feel superior and less guilty about their position.

Wrong conclusion - your premise is flawed.

Soldiers who fight in the war yet not support it, are being incongruent. However, they may not have a choice. They're obeying orders. I suppose they can refuse to fight, but I don't know what the consequences would be for that.

You arent making any sense.

Regardless of if you support a war or not, if you fight in it, you are supporting it. If you do not support it, you do not fight in it.

It does not get much simpler. I could break out some crayons i suppose...? Would that help you get this very simple concept?

Regardless of if you support a war or not, if you fight in it, you are supporting it. If you do not support it, you do not fight in it.

It does not get much simpler. I could break out some crayons i suppose...? Would that help you get this very simple concept?

What are the consequences for a soldier if he refuses to fight? Can he be kicked out of the military? Arrested?

What are the consequences for a soldier if he refuses to fight? Can he be kicked out of the military? Arrested?

Kicked out of the millitary or arrested: as opposed to killing in the name of something you disagree with? I dont know. I suppose it depends on personal conviction... Personally I think its bullshit that you could be kicked out or arrested for refusing to fight, but, whatever. The US government has a truly shitty history regarding being sensative towards citizens during times of war.

People who don't support the war are presumably doing exactly what they should be doing: not fighting in it.

There's absolutely nothing contradictory or analogous about it.

maybe my perception is skewed. I fully admit to having an emotional and irrational view on this subject.

Your perception is anything but skewed. Your first statement is 100% correct.

A person either supports the war in Iraq, or does not support the war. If someone told me to punch a guy in the face, and I didn't believe in punching that guy in the face, it would not be incongruent of me to refuse to punch him.

Support = punch the guy in the face
No support = not punching the guy in the face

It doesn't mean that I have to go and protest punching the guy in the face, or start a fundraiser trying to end all face-punching, or lead a new anti-face punching movement. Those actions would be congruent if I believed that protesting, starting fundraisers, and leading movements would all actually do something, and if I felt strongly enough about doing those things.

Now I do not support this war at all. So by not fighting in it, I am being congruent with my beliefs. If I believe that protesting will end this war, then I should protest. But I don't think protesting does a damn thing, so I don't protest.

Does this make any sense to anyone? The deeper you go into this for yourself, the more you really learn about your beliefs. And that's really what this is about, and it's what people are almost afraid to explore. We'd all much rather watch American Idol and think about what kind of ice cream we're gonna have before bedtime.

Now I do not support this war at all. So by not fighting in it, I am being congruent with my beliefs.

Your "congruence" is completely passive because the United States has no draft. If "congruent" meant "sitting on my ass" then most people would be congruent most of the time. It's congruent that I'm for alternative energy development. Therefore I'm sitting on my ass to show how congruent I am.

Real anti war sentiments might manifest themselves in demonstrations, media campaigns, letter writing and so on. How many of those have you participated in?


-

Your "congruence" is completely passive because the United States has no draft.

No, my congruence is passive because it's the consistent response for my beliefs about the war.

If there was a draft, (and that may be a reality in the future) I still would refuse to fight in it. I'd either go to jail, or go to Iraq and be a nurse for the soldiers.

Real anti war sentiments might manifest themselves in demonstrations, media campaigns, letter writing and so on. How many of those have you participated in?

I'm not anti-war. I mentioned that earlier.

So you're anti war but not the active kind of anti war. Got it.

So you're anti war but not the active kind of anti war. Got it.

I take a very eastern philosophy towards conflict in general. I believe in defense as a last resort and I will defend myself and my family and friends before I ever defend the US government. Violence is not an effective solution, it never has and never will be, but some situations call for it, unfortunately. And that is life.

So, I can't be anti all war, because I do believe in defense as a last resort, even military defense. If there was a situation where my family and friends were in danger, you bet I'd fight.

So, I do feel pretty frustrated over this war. I don't support it, I'd love to see the troops come home now, but I believe in responsibility, and we are responsible for invading a foreign country and what we've done over there.

This was hilarious...

I take a very eastern philosophy towards conflict in general. I believe in defense as a last resort and I will defend myself and my family and friends before I ever defend the US government.

So, THIS means that he will "defend" himself and his family, but NOT his neighbors and community. So, he is uncaring about everyone but his family... and I'd bet they wonder about THAT loyalty, too!

Violence is not an effective solution, it never has and never will be, but some situations call for it, unfortunately. And that is life.

BS. Violence CAN be a perfectly effective solution. The Nazis didn't fight again. Neither did the Confederates. Etc., etc.

So, I can't be anti all war, because I do believe in defense as a last resort, even military defense. If there was a situation where my family and friends were in danger, you bet I'd fight.

Um, you defined defending yourself as something you would ONLY do to defend your family and friends. That is NOT "war". That is self-defense on a personal level.

No WONDER you have no clue what you are on about. You cannot even properly define simple words and concepts!

This was hilarious...

It really wasnt as funny as your reply.... Although I know its not directed at me, I cant help but point out how irrational your statements are.



So, THIS means that he will "defend" himself and his family, but NOT his neighbors and community.

1st off--He said Friends, and family. Friends could very likely mean his community, neighbors and friends.

2nd--He stated he would not defend the US Government[.b]. He said nothing about not defending his neighbors or community. Since when did neighbors and community become interchangeable with US Government?


So, he is uncaring about everyone but his family

..... Where exactly are you pulling this from? Your ass?


BS. Violence CAN be a perfectly effective solution. The Nazis didn't fight again. Neither did the Confederates. Etc., etc.

What the ****... How thick are you?.... We fought the Nazi's in [b]self defense. We fought the Confederacy in self-defense (technically). Much as the person your arguing with claims we should have. You just used two examples that defeat your own argument.


No WONDER you have no clue what you are on about. You cannot even properly define simple words and concepts!

Right... Right... I find this extremely ****ing ironic. Beings you did nothing but put words in his mouth, interchange things that had nothing to do with eachother, and then defeat your own statements by using two examples that go against your argument.

Seriously man. After such a shitty post you shouldnt be making personal attacks.

1st off--He said Friends, and family. Friends could very likely mean his community, neighbors and friends.

Only to a disingenuous liar. If he MEANT "community" he would have SAID community. NO ONE calls the community their "friends".

2nd--He stated he would not defend the [b]US Government

More disingenuousness. Now, if you are talking definitions, a government CAN be called the community, because the community is governed by the standards set by the community leaders and community leaders ARE government.

Therefore, if he will NOT fight for his government he CANNOT, then, claim to want to fight for his community!

We fought the Confederacy in self-defense

Ever read a BOOK? Apparently NOT.

Seriously man. After such a shitty post you shouldnt be making personal attacks.

If "shitty posts" were your hatred, you'd never post at ALL.

You are both disingenuous liars.

Of course I'd defend my community, except for you, you cock juggling assclown. I'd let you stay behind in your cave. While my community was being attacked, you'd sit back and let me defend it, just like you do now with the war in Iraq. Why stand up for what you believe in when I can do if for you, right? Even if you did decide to put down your twinkies and actually stand up for what you believe in so strongly, I wouldn't want you on my team. Hell, you're already defeated. Your attitude and cowardice kick your own ass.

Only to a disingenuous liar. If he MEANT "community" he would have SAID community. NO ONE calls the community their "friends".

Hey man. Sorry to say it, but some people do have a good standing in their community, consisting of many friends, much family, and an all around good disposition. Even if you dont hold this kind of position in your community, doesnt mean myself or Optimus cant either.

By the by, I would personally interchange the community I grew up in as family. But thats just me.


More disingenuousness. Now, if you are talking definitions, a government CAN be called the community, because the community is governed by the standards set by the community leaders and community leaders ARE government.

A government is supposed to be representative, but who is actually thick enough to think the US government represents its citizens? Your the one being disingenous, trying to act as though the US government is the ****ing community. Thats absurd, and you know it.


Therefore, if he will NOT fight for his government he CANNOT, then, claim to want to fight for his community!

Bullshit. Your claim that you have to either fight for everyone or no one is absolutly absurd. Hell, for most of history the main reason men went to war was to defend their family and friends from oncoming invasion. Thats kind of the point. And your overgeneralization of a man you dont know at all just shows how weak your argument is.


Ever read a BOOK? Apparently NOT.

You win. I have never read a book.

Now, besides your lame ass personal attacks, how about you give me your historical account of the South not performing the first strike in every case in the civil war? From their secession to the first strikes performed.

Also, I have a confession to make. I lied earlier. I have read some books.. The admittidly few (3 or 4) books iv read on the civil war, all seem to agree that it started when the confederacy bombed Fort Sumter... But hell, they must just all be wrong. Go ahead Mobile, learn me some history. Go get them there fancy books of yours and read to me the truth of who attacked first.


If "shitty posts" were your hatred, you'd never post at ALL.

You are both disingenuous liars.

Hmmm.... Alls I can really say to that is: Grow up, and learn how to debate in a civilized manner. Alls youv done is been rude, brash, and made personal attacks and generalizations on myself and optimus. You dont know me, and you dont know him. Get the **** over it.

Wrong conclusion - your premise is flawed.

Soldiers who fight in the war yet not support it, are being incongruent. However, they may not have a choice. They're obeying orders. I suppose they can refuse to fight, but I don't know what the consequences would be for that.If there is a flawed premise, it was the OP. We certainly don't need a miltary with 100 million people in it just because the anti-war folks think that's how it should work. Soldiers voluntarily choose to join the military. The fact that they don't agree with any war became irrelevent the second they signed up. Soldiers are the tools of our government. When we elect a president, we also elect the commander and chief of the armed forces.

Everyone in this country supports the war through taxation. The taxes we pay fund the military and whatever war our government gets us into. Whether we all agree or not, we are essentially forced to support the war because of the representation in government that we voluntarily chose. Learning to accept the results of an election is just part of living in a democracy and being an American citizen. If you really want to be anti-war, try not paying your taxes and see how far that goes. I'll give you a hint - it'll go about as far as protesting and internet bitch fests do.

I stand by my original post. If soldiers can fight and not support the war, then citizens can support the war and not fight. This statement is so blatantly obvious in it's logic, that some here are incapable of comprehending. It could be stated another way that should will bring clarity. If you don't like what the government is doing, tough shit. Again, learning to accept the results of an election is just part of being an American citizen. If you don't like that, you don't deserve to be one.

Funny logic.

So if you oppose abortion you should do whatever necessary to stop it?

Hell, for most of history the main reason men went to war was to defend their family and friends from oncoming invasion.
Wouldn't that be more like 50% of the time? After all, the other 50% would be the invaders themselves. :)

If there is a flawed premise, it was the OP. We certainly don't need a miltary with 100 million people in it just because the anti-war folks think that's how it should work. Soldiers voluntarily choose to join the military. The fact that they don't agree with any war became irrelevent the second they signed up. Soldiers are the tools of our government. When we elect a president, we also elect the commander and chief of the armed forces.

Everyone in this country supports the war through taxation. The taxes we pay fund the military and whatever war our government gets us into. Whether we all agree or not, we are essentially forced to support the war because of the representation in government that we voluntarily chose. Learning to accept the results of an election is just part of living in a democracy and being an American citizen. If you really want to be anti-war, try not paying your taxes and see how far that goes. I'll give you a hint - it'll go about as far as protesting and internet bitch fests do.

I stand by my original post. If soldiers can fight and not support the war, then citizens can support the war and not fight. This statement is so blatantly obvious in it's logic, that some here are incapable of comprehending. It could be stated another way that should will bring clarity. If you don't like what the government is doing, tough shit. Again, learning to accept the results of an election is just part of being an American citizen. If you don't like that, you don't deserve to be one.

I am not suggesting a military with 100 million people. And really, what soldier would volunteer for the military if they were anti-war? Hello? Your statement makes no sense, because what soldier is going to go off to battle if they didn't believe in what they were doing? None. That is blatantly obvious logic.

I think you may be missing my point. This is about realizing how truly one supports this war. Your so-called support really is conditional support. And because it's conditional it's really just a comfortable fantasy, and not real support at all.

If most of the "supporters" were forced to fight, forced to kill, forced to hear bullets zooming by their head, forced to hear the deafening sounds of explosions and blood curdling screams of their fellow soldiers, they for sure would question their level of "support" and then they'd discover that their support wasn't really support at all.

You support this war as long as you don't have to fight.
You support this war as long as you don't have to think about it.
You support this war because it gives you comfort and makes you feel patriotic.
You support this war until you have to put your own ass on the line.
You support this war because others will do the work for you.

And that is the harsh reality of it. 99% of the supporters "support" is empty and meaningless.

I am not suggesting a military with 100 million people. And really, what soldier would volunteer for the military if they were anti-war? Hello? Your statement makes no sense, because what soldier is go