scribo Posted November 7, 2008 Posted November 7, 2008 Had the Japanese never bombed Pearl Harbor, one could make the argument that no blood has been shed for AMERICAN freedom since the Civil War- and even that's a stretch. You will never convince me that a pre-emptive strike on a country on a different continent, that lacks any kind of military that could go toe to toe with the United States was executed because my OWN liberties were at stake. You have not/probably will never convince me of this. As for who joins the military, I don't know who was signing up generations ago, and you don't know the people that are my age that are signing up now (at least not like I do), so I don't really care to discuss that one further. You have officially lost me. But the Japanese did bomb us. Are you saying neither of the World Wars saved America? What do you suppose Hilter would have done if he successfully took over and held all of Europe? How do you know your second paragraph is accurate? You do not know me. I happen to be around recruiters and those they are recruiting on a regular basis.
Dan Posted November 7, 2008 Posted November 7, 2008 Good post. Of course the president needs to take in the big picture and make his decisions based on that. So maybe the big difference between Obama's view and my view is that Obama doesn't see an Iraq vulnerable to take over by Iran and/or al-Qaeda as much as threat to our national security as I do. And therein lies the rub and I would say was just one of the fundamental differences between McCain and Obama. How important is a free and stable Iraq? How is the best way to ensure a free and stable Iraq? A few tough questions that I won't begin to suggest that I have the answer to. However, much as I did when Bush pushed for war with Iraq, I'll have to trust the new President to make the right decision. As it turns out, IMO, Bush was wrong to push us into war and it's led us as a nation down a long and bad road. Hopefully, Obama uses better judgment and makes a better decision. I suspect we won't know for many years.
scribo Posted November 7, 2008 Posted November 7, 2008 And therein lies the rub and I would say was just one of the fundamental differences between McCain and Obama. How important is a free and stable Iraq? How is the best way to ensure a free and stable Iraq? A few tough questions that I won't begin to suggest that I have the answer to. However, much as I did when Bush pushed for war with Iraq, I'll have to trust the new President to make the right decision. As it turns out, IMO, Bush was wrong to push us into war and it's led us as a nation down a long and bad road. Hopefully, Obama uses better judgment and makes a better decision. I suspect we won't know for many years. I suspect you are right. Of course, I believe this war was not wrong and was needed and is already resulting in a safer world.
Dan Posted November 7, 2008 Posted November 7, 2008 I suspect you are right. Of course, I believe this war was not wrong and was needed and is already resulting in a safer world. That's where we'll have to agree to disagree. Nothing wrong with that, right. I do agree that now it's needed; however, initially I'm less convinced. Certainly, many of the reasons cited for going to war - WMDs, Saddam's strong army, terrorists in Iraq (at the time the war began) - didn't pan out to be true.
Lori Posted November 7, 2008 Posted November 7, 2008 As for who joins the military, I don't know who was signing up generations ago, and you don't know the people that are my age that are signing up now (at least not like I do), so I don't really care to discuss that one further. scribo certainly doesn't need my help in this debate, and I'll respect his right to privacy by not telling you precisely why you're wrong about this. But you are wrong about this.
The Big Cat Posted November 7, 2008 Author Posted November 7, 2008 You have officially lost me. But the Japanese did bomb us. Are you saying neither of the World Wars saved America? What do you suppose Hilter would have done if he successfully took over and held all of Europe?How do you know your second paragraph is accurate? You do not know me. I happen to be around recruiters and those they are recruiting on a regular basis. But now it's you that's speculating. Personally, I believe that because our country is protected by oceans on either side that we are virtually INVASION proof. Do I think Hitler would have taken over Europe and then set his sights on the US? Probably not, since he a.) wasn't acting alone and b.) was at the head of an army/people too beaten up to travel across the ocean to take us on. The one successful MILITARY attack on the US was Pearl Harbor, on an island halfway between the lower 48 and Japan. I honestly don't think any military successfully makes it all the way to our shores to instigate a LIBERTY THREATENING conflict. And for that matter, terrorism, while it might threaten people's lives, doesn't pose a threat to LIBERTY since liberty is a CONCEPT granted to the American people by our government. Therefor, you cannot sieze my freedom, unless you seize my government. Now that we've practically bankrupted ourselves fighting this war, and the debates on how to now manage this war have actually SEIZED our government, one could make the argument that involving ourselves in this war did more to sacrifice liberty than the enemy could have ever hoped to do on their own! Also, since it's been established here time and time again that we're not fighting an enemy that seeks to overthrow the American government by attacking us, then I don't buy into the incessant "fighting to save our liberty" rhetoric. And furthermore, even if they were scheming to overthrow the government, I'd love to see them come and try. Had we allocated our resources properly the first time around (tighten up our borders/intelligence) this War on Terror would be over.
The Big Cat Posted November 7, 2008 Author Posted November 7, 2008 scribo certainly doesn't need my help in this debate, and I'll respect his right to privacy by not telling you precisely why you're wrong about this. But you are wrong about this. If I'm "wrong" about this, then I guess the only people who have EVER enlisted in our army are young, disadvantaged Americans without the ways or means for higher education.
elegantelliotoffen Posted November 7, 2008 Posted November 7, 2008 I suspect you are right. Of course, I believe this war was not wrong and was needed and is already resulting in a safer world. Had we not invaded Iraq what would have happened?
The Big Cat Posted November 7, 2008 Author Posted November 7, 2008 Had we not invaded Iraq what would have happened? There's two answers to that question: The neocon's answer Everyone else's
Chef Jim Posted November 7, 2008 Posted November 7, 2008 There's two answers to that question: The neocon's answer Everyone else's Life is simple in that tiny brain of yours isn't it.
The Big Cat Posted November 7, 2008 Author Posted November 7, 2008 Life is simple in that tiny brain of yours isn't it. I'm just a stupid young person.
Boomer860 Posted November 7, 2008 Posted November 7, 2008 I'm just a stupid young person. Wow great self analysis
The Big Cat Posted November 7, 2008 Author Posted November 7, 2008 Wow great self analysis I guess you don't read to well. I'm a sheep. I can't think for myself. This wasn't self analysis, I was fortunate enough to have others tell me what to think of myself.
Chef Jim Posted November 8, 2008 Posted November 8, 2008 I guess you don't read to well. I'm a sheep. I can't think for myself. This wasn't self analysis, I was fortunate enough to have others tell me what to think of myself. No you think of your self as you wish, and hopefully you think very highly of yourself. See we base our thoughts on eachother based on a few written words. That may be very shallow but that's all we have to go on. You may think I'm an arrogant ****....ok, ok, you'd be pretty much spot on but I digress....but I do have some pretty good quatlities and I really don't care if you have any idea what those qualities are or not. I'm not here to impress anyone or make friends and really don't give a rats ass if I do and neither should you. Hopefully you can wrap your tiny mind around that.
Lori Posted November 8, 2008 Posted November 8, 2008 If I'm "wrong" about this, then I guess the only people who have EVER enlisted in our army are young, disadvantaged Americans without the ways or means for higher education. Way to totally misunderstand my point. Reread what you wrote -- to paraphrase, "You don't know these people (the current enlistees) like I do." That's what I'm calling bull sh-- on, because I'm pretty damn sure he does.
scribo Posted November 9, 2008 Posted November 9, 2008 If I'm "wrong" about this, then I guess the only people who have EVER enlisted in our army are young, disadvantaged Americans without the ways or means for higher education. I apparently have a problem with reading comprehension, as I am not sure what you're saying here. Would you please help me understand? Are you saying the only people enlisted now are young, poor Americans? Or are you saying those are the only type of people who are enlisting I know? Since you don't know me and I don't know you, I won't argue about who might know more enlistees. But I will say the stats back me up, and you should know that you're not as "young" as you seem to think. The average enlistee is about not quite 20, and the typical age range is 18-24, so you are about to fall our of the range, and you weren't even in high school with today's average enlistee. Now, to the real meat of this post. If you are saying today's enlistees are all poor, uneducated people, you are grossly misinformed. Check out this study: http://www.heritage.org/Research/NationalS...ty/cda06-09.cfm The linked report is from the Heritage Foundation on who is enlisting in the military. It uses census and other data to identify the origins of recruits in addition to statistics the military provides. Overall, the wartime recruits are more similar than dissimilar to their civilian counterparts. The all-volunteer force displays near proportional representation of income backgrounds. With regard to income, education, race, and regional background, the all-volunteer force is representative of our nation and meets standards set by Congress and the Department of Defense. In contrast to the patronizing slanders of antiwar critics, recruit quality is increasing as the war in Iraq continues. Although recruiting goals were difficult to meet for about a year and a held after the war in Iraq started, re-enlistment remained strong and recruit quality remained high. "The slight differences are that wartime U.S. military enlistees are better educated, wealthier, and more rural on average than their civilian peers." -- The Heritage Foundation
Recommended Posts