War Supporters

[homeschoolmom]

Even if a draft were necessary, it would be HORRIBLY unpopular and I can't imagine any senator (of either party) willing to give up his/her seat for it.

[catholicinsd]

[quote name='homeschoolmom' post='1146415' date='Dec 20 2006, 01:37 AM']
Even if a draft were necessary, it would be HORRIBLY unpopular and I can't imagine any senator (of either party) willing to give up his/her seat for it.
[/quote]

I'm sure some on the extreme Right would do whatever Bush asked of them.

[homeschoolmom]

[quote name='catholicinsd' post='1146418' date='Dec 20 2006, 01:40 AM']
I'm sure some on the extreme Right would do whatever Bush asked of them.
[/quote]
I'm not.

[catholicinsd]

[quote name='homeschoolmom' post='1146419' date='Dec 20 2006, 01:41 AM']
I'm not.
[/quote]
Well in our present, one can't safely assume anything.

[MilesChristi]

homeschoolmom isn't making an assumption - you are. You said you were "sure some on the extreme Right would do whatever Bush asked of them." She doesn't share your certainty.

[Lounge Daddy]

[b]#1 – THE DRAFT.[/b] The draft law was introduced by the [i]Democrats[/i] long ago, with no general support by the Republicans… thus Kerry’s slamming of the idea of an all volunteer military back in the 1970’s (and again recently). With the Dems being big fans of getting’ things done under the government gun, you shouldn’t worry too much as long as the GOP has some sway in Washington and there are a lot of Conservative voters.

The recent "draft threat" was a crappy Democrat Party scare-tactic during the 2004 Presidential elections… and it obviously failed miserably when Bush won re-election big time.
Btw – according to a counter at my blog (thanks to ConservativePunk.com) as I type this, it has been 633 days, 2 hours, and 3 mins since President Bush was re-elected and WOW …no draft.
Not even a real mention of one, until the possibility of some Democratic control in Washington came into the equation…

If the draft comes back, it will be the Dems that bring it back.

[b]#2 – “Do you support the war, and are you in the military?”[/b]
– Holy freaking carp, do I hate those questions placed in that order… esp when they come from Liberals.
Typically the implication is: You can’t support the war unless you have served, or are serving in the military – but, you can criticize the war and the Commander in Chief all you want, whether you served in the military or not!

This reasoning doesn’t make any sense and it doesn’t fit any explanation other than to say this line of reasoning can only originate from the likes of John Murtha, those freaks at Code Pink, and the MoveOn.org people.

Edited December 20, 2006 by Lounge Daddy

[Lounge Daddy]

[quote name='catholicinsd' post='1146414' date='Dec 20 2006, 02:36 AM']
Yes, well now Bush wants to enlarge the Militairy. And annual recruitment numbers do meet what he wants.
[/quote]

Um... Recruitment numbers have been fantastic, even exceeding expectations more often than not.

Our general military is [i]not[/i] spread thin (despite what the liberal msm would portray), the war is going o-k on our front, Iraq is excellent - the entire country except the Capitol Baghdad and one providence are totally in Iraqi control!

I guess I don’t see the negative right now; and the Liberals and pacifists need a negative because they can’t stand military anything, or need political leverage.
So where are you coming from, "catholicinsd"?

[IcePrincessKRS]

[quote name='catholicinsd' post='1146250' date='Dec 19 2006, 11:37 PM']
If they truly supported it, and wanted to go over, they'd find a way.
[/quote]

Ok, you've convinced me. I'm going to abandon my 3 children and go sign up! And if they reject me because I can't do the right number of pushups or run fast enough to qualify I'm going to sneak my way in anyway!

Do you see how ridiculous comments like "they'd find a way" are?

[quote name='catholicinsd' post='1146373' date='Dec 20 2006, 01:44 AM']
Well, their all Convseravites and we know how bright they all are.
[/quote]

Yes, because all racists and war supporters are Republicans. Gimmie a break.

[quote name='Groo the Wanderer' post='1146380' date='Dec 20 2006, 01:47 AM']
And if ye wanna get REALLY radical...go find a soldier and talk to someone who's been there...
[/quote]

Absolutely.

[quote name='catholicinsd' post='1146381' date='Dec 20 2006, 01:47 AM']
If you've ever lived in any kind of rural area you know that, that is fact.
[/quote]

I grew up in a rural area. I currently live in a rural area. Your claims still don't follow logically.

[quote name='catholicinsd' post='1146389' date='Dec 20 2006, 01:54 AM']
So it's ok for a buch of War-loving, Limbaugh-listeners to jump on a kid when his political veiws are different their own?
On the farm the farmer must be willing to do everything he assigns out.
[/quote]

I don't love the war, I support it. I don't listen to Limbaugh---haven't heard his voice in YEARS, probably close to a decade, in fact. When you say controversial things you should expect to be jumped on. When we disagree with you and find your claims ludicrous or offensive we're not going to coddle you and let you think we agree with you. Sorry.

[quote name='homeschoolmom' post='1146395' date='Dec 20 2006, 01:54 AM']
It is NOT a fact.

Being willing is not enough. Being the right person for the job is. The soldiers in our military are the right people for the job... not just a bunch of people "willing" to go start shooting at whoever they see.
[/quote]

And after SIX pages we're still making the same point we've been making all along. Willing does not equal ABLE.

[quote name='catholicinsd' post='1146403' date='Dec 20 2006, 02:12 AM']

Guess what? South Dakota
[/quote]

SD is not the world, either.

[quote name='catholicinsd' post='1146407' date='Dec 20 2006, 02:22 AM']
Well, suffice it to say that when I am drafted, which is very possible with Bush, I will do wat I must do, but so help me, ya'll are coming with me.
[/quote]

No I won't be. Because they don't draft 26 year old stay-at-home-mothers-of-three. There's that whole "willing vs. able" thing again.

[quote name='MilesChristi' post='1146411' date='Dec 20 2006, 02:33 AM']
Unless I'm mistaken, the only person who has seriously called for reviving the draft has been a [b]Democratic[/b] representative from NY.
[/quote]

I do believe you are right.

[Mary-Kathryn]

[quote name='catholicinsd' post='1146266' date='Dec 19 2006, 11:49 PM']
I have read it, and I must tell that history is full a people who supported a cause so much, that they'd would illegally join the service
[/quote]

I'm way late in this game of 6 pages so there's alot I haven't read. On the point of supporting a war to the point of going over at any cost: I seem to recall a story at the beginning of the war that went something like the following. [this is not a de-railment of your thread, I have no interest in the whole married couples in the military thing]

A married couple were both in the service and both had been called up. I don't think they were called up together. It seems the last one to go neglected to get appropriate care for their school-age children and they were left to fend for themselves for awhile until neighbors caught on [which was pretty quickly in on-base housing] So they were both brought back with one spouse in deep doo-doo and the other to care for the children and figure the whole marriage issue out.

So do you get what your whole "go at any cost" idea could lead to? It's not responsible or moral, and it could have far-reaching consequences. Those who are called to the life as a military men, live the life. Others are not. My husband lived the life for 22 years. He was never called to serve in the war, but he did volunteer to be with his "brothers" It is what they do. They would rather die fighting beside their brothers than sit behind a desk. That is a sacrifice that many your age find hard to grasp. They believe in their country, in their military and in the men they fight with. A life given this way is never a "wasted" life.

[catholic_apologetics]

Call me crazy, but isn't saying "I support the troops, but not the war" like saying "I am personally opposed to abortion, but will vote pro-abortion". If we are going to support an individual, but not their actions, isn't it also the same as saying "I support Hitler, but not his war" or "I support Hitler's troops, but not their cause"? It seems that our liberal friends here are the pot calling the kettle black. Let's not forget that the only reason our liberal friends even have the right to voice their disagreement is because someone else paid for that right with their blood.

[track2004]

[quote name='catholic_apologetics' post='1146550' date='Dec 20 2006, 03:52 PM']
Call me crazy, but isn't saying "I support the troops, but not the war" like saying "I am personally opposed to abortion, but will vote pro-abortion". If we are going to support an individual, but not their actions, isn't it also the same as saying "I support Hitler, but not his war" or "I support Hitler's troops, but not their cause"? It seems that our liberal friends here are the pot calling the kettle black. Let's not forget that the only reason our liberal friends even have the right to voice their disagreement is because someone else paid for that right with their blood.
[/quote]

Wouldn't that logic then follow to the "Hate the sin, love the sinner"? Because the sinner is in that sense defined by his sin.

And what about the enlisted men and women who are opposed to the war, but are still fighting it because it's their job?

[catholicinsd]

[quote name='Mary-Kathryn' post='1146485' date='Dec 20 2006, 10:38 AM']

A married couple were both in the service and both had been called up. I don't think they were called up together. It seems the last one to go neglected to get appropriate care for their school-age children and they were left to fend for themselves for awhile until neighbors caught on [which was pretty quickly in on-base housing] So they were both brought back with one spouse in deep doo-doo and the other to care for the children and figure the whole marriage issue out.

[/quote]

Well someone in the government screwed up.

[rkwright]

I support the Chicago Bears winning the super bowl... but I'm not going to go play football.

I support curing cancer... but I'm not going to be a doctor (life threatening there...)

I support the Church's earthly mission... but I'm not (don't think at least ) going to be a priest (soul threatening there)

You would say that if I supported any of these strongly enough, I'd find a way...

Sadly I can't play pro-football, I'm not in school for a doctor (and don't think I have that much interest in science to make it through medical school, ie I'd flunk out) and as for the priesthood... we'll I'm still workin on that one But my girlfriend would be quiet surprised about it!

Bad logic SD.. and even if its 'good logic on the farm', like Groo said, the real world isn't the farm.

[Mary-Kathryn]

[quote name='catholicinsd' post='1146667' date='Dec 20 2006, 08:16 PM']
Well someone in the government screwed up.
[/quote]


You missed the point. Try again.

[White Knight]

This Poll sould be changed, because the [color="#3333FF"][b]War on Iraq is not a seperate war,[/b] [/color] its non existant, its apart of the [color="#FF0000"][b]"War on Terrorism"[/b] [/color] I believe this sould be addressed differently before debate even begins. Unfortunately its already begun and theres probally alot of good points that have been said already.

Edited December 22, 2006 by White Knight