From those you who believe in George bush, I ask:

[Blueberry]

Hmmmm....I see that my comment, made ambiguously tongue-in-cheek to make a point, was taken quite literally and the point was missed. SO totally my bad. Of course nobody can sign up someone else for military duty. Oy. The ENTIRE POINT is, (and let me be absolutely, unequivocally literal this time around :roll: ) Bush would never suggest to or encourage the twins to do their duty to their country and enlist. No way. No how. He knows better. This is a war fought and sacrificed by OTHER people's kids, not his.

There, is that better?

 

[Navy Pride]

B]3.2 million manufacturing jobs have been lost under the commander in chimp![/B]

Sounds like another typical Bush hater to me...............Where were you when your hero Clinton was signing the GATT and NAFTA bills that took millions of jobs from this country?

 

[Navy Pride]

America was pretty Nazi-supportive back in the day when the war was about to begin.

Do you have any facts to back up that ridiculous statement? Thanks

 

[saveChief]

Am I the only one who thinks that there is something wrong when a citizen wants to enlist in the military to serve their country with the most patriotic intentions, but is reluctant to because of the cause their armed forces are currently wrapped up in?

 

[PhotonicLaceration]

saveChief, unless you speak of yourself, do you know any such citizen that meets what you are saying? I know a man who enlisted in the military BECAUSE of the current missions our armed forces are involved in.

More likely, someone who might fit in your category wants to join the military selfishly so they can get their college paid for, and is completely unwilling to risk his life for any reason. That type of person isn't the one who joined up for "patriotic intentions."

I think there is something wrong if you join the military to get the benefits alone.

Define what your "Patriotic Intentions" are. Do they include serving over seas or selfless duty to the nation?

 

[Factologist]

I took the Navy test in '90...they said I did "quite well", but didn't give specifics...failed the physical, which had to be one of the stupidest things on earth considering I was a pro-wrestler at the time....

You are making an assumption that if one agrees with the government's military functions, then they should be there; which, I guess for you, would be quite nice; having everyone who disagrees with you fighting overseas to protect your right to be "48 years old" going on "retarded"....

Do you also belong to Liars Anonymous?

 

[cnredd]

Do you also belong to Liars Anonymous?

exweeze me?

 

[Schweddy]

Do you also belong to Liars Anonymous?

If you wish to condone in this type of slander - please visit the basement forum.
The regular forum is not for this type of activity.

Thank you.

 

[SKILMATIC]

^ very well noted

 

[Kelzie]

Overall...agreed, but keep in mind that once someone is 18, they are not bound by law to go along with what daddy says...

What...? I know, that's why I said not only is it bad to be forced into the military for what you believe, it is even worse to be forced for what your father believes. Which is why the posts went in this order:

Bush should immediately sign up his twins for military service to show the world how much he believes in the war effort, to prove that this mission is noble, worth fighting, and most importantly, worth losing family members over.
Put your money where your mouth is, dude

.

Military is a VOLUNTEER service, which has a mandatory age limit.
It is illegal to sign someone else up.

To believe that someone should be forced into military service for what they themselves believe is ignorant.

Or even worse. For what their father believes...

See? I was agreeing with you AND saying it is even worse that someone believes the twins should be forced into the military because of their dad.

 

[saveChief]

When I mentioned patriotic intentions I meant it in the most stereotypical of fashions:
To serve one's country for the purpose of defending its honor, history, people and for the preservation of the greatest country in the world. No alterior motives, I certainly think that someone who is enlisting SOLELY for the economic benefits is not doing it for patriotic reasons (that is not to say that they cannot be patriotic).

I am actually a student right now, prime age to enlist. I have talked with people extensively about the war, considering it is a prime concern for many young men of my age. Yes I can most definitly say that while I cannot speak unequivocally for them, I have spoken with people who felt very strong about enlisting, but have become jaded by the current seemingly listless agenda of the United States Military.

I think that my point was that it should be noted the high degree to which some young (and not so young) people in this country take issue with the current state of affairs (read: shambles)--that the government has bumbled through most of the Iraqi situation--is enough to dissuade them from their previous intentions. You can be a patriotic person and disagree with the war. Patriotic doesn't have to mean mindless.

 

[PhotonicLaceration]

Thank you for replying in your well-educated good mannered fashion.

Well, I personally think that our actions in Afghanistan were purely honorable, and important to preserve the United States and protect the country from those who threaten it. The other potential "shackles" imposed on freedom (patriot act kinda stuff) were not a result of the armed forces. The Armed Forces is still doing it's duty to preserve our freedom. I also think our operations in the long run, if they do not help us in the immediate, it is definitely a step towards preserving us as one of the better countries for the future.

I agree that you can be patriotic and not be for war, but I don't think that it won't still be patriotic for people to fight for the United States, or the other more engaged troops. I think it'd be highly honorable to be there just to help out other fellow Americans fighting over seas even if the direct mission itself is disagreeable. Or even just being there to try and help things get done faster.

In my opinion, If we were to go the route of appeasement, which is the route the Spanish took already, as well as Europe in the past (wwI, WWII), I think it'd be letting them win, and in the long would damage our history, freedom, and our country to have to change ourselves to their liking and open us up to further attacks instead of showing them that we can't tolerate them.

But that's just me... We still haven't caught Osama, so our actions in Afghanistan (do you only disagree with Iraq or Afghany too?) still aren't over. Most of the Agendas you speak of, which, if you believe there are really so many agendas (just in it for the oil etc.) would be Agendas of the administration, and not the U.S. Military itself, which is doing a very good job and trying as hard as it can to positively influence the regions it's in. (Elections in both countries have occurred for example and efforts are being made to stabalize the region in the long run)

I think, that in both cases since we are there upon good intentions that it can't hurt the honor of the United States.

 

[saveChief]

Point well taken. The military is executing orders. I may take the issue to the highest ranking officers (who often have their toes dipped in the political pool as well) who may be responsible for some of the stagnation.

I agree with Afghanistan a lot more than I do with Iraq. The taliban was a much more threatening government and there was distinct physical evidence that it was aiding and abetting terrorist organizations. Most of our traditional allies I believe were more aligned on our side in Afghanistan as well (correct me if I'm wrong). Afghanistan was screwed up by the Russians and was completely prone when the taliban usurped power.

I agree that a complete withdrawal will show weakness and will give many radical terrorists cells in the region a new zeal. That would be a poor decision. We have already made too much of a commitment in the area for such dramatic action. But realistically, an incredible amount of focus must be shifted to some level of appeasement. If we do not concede somewhat on our staunch principles there are two outcomes (provided that we will commit ourselves to such a great extent).
1. We "beat the insurgents into submission", literally disregarding a more humane approach and deciding to ruthless start killing Sunnis just because some of them are against us. This approach will backfire in so many ways I don't have the heart to delve in to it.
2. We maintain a force in their country as we are currently doing. Watching over the land and engaging in their guerrilla tactics. This could lead to years and years of troop presence in Iraq without any major progress. People on both sides would be getting killed and no problems would be getting solved.

In the end, I think you will agree with me, we should encourage a state of self-government. The only way to get a large enough majority of the Iraqi population to do so can be summarized by two words: appeasement and compromise. One of the reasons why our country can function so well though it is comprised of so many vastly different cultures is because it makes concessions for each group. Although this would be hard to establish on democratically-virgin ground, such as Iraq (having no prior experience with such policies), I think it is the unanimous best scenario.

We had a presence in Vietnam for many years without gain, and in the end we had to pull out with our tail between our legs; our record of "never having lost a war" dissolved. Though our worst fears became reality-communism took hold-the country stabilized and is now integrated into the modern world. Maybe giving everything up in Iraq is not a good idea, but maybe giving nothing up isn't a good idea either.