an idea

[thisyrsmodel]

Why isn't an ammendment passed stating that if Congress approves a war, all of the Congressmans' children, of age, *must* be the first to enlist in the army. As well as the children, of age, of the President, Vice President and Secretary of Defense

Comments

[changingweather]

Agreed.

[brentstaples]

when any human joins any branch of serice in the united states they know that when they enlist their duty bound to fight if it is so ordered.period . I dont feel sorry for any one who joins the service and then bitches when its time to fullfill their obligation .
and as far as demanding that congress send their own sons and daughters ...what the fuck?
how un american is that idea? demanding someone serve because of who their parents are ?
re- instate the draft or better yet make everyone between 18 and 20 serve in the military ,period.(it works pretty well for israel)

[thisyrsmodel]

That post wasn't completely serious, sir. It was more a tongue-in-cheek suggestion that may have prevented the Iraq war, it was not meant to be taken as a serious proposal.

[brentstaples]

prevent the war in iraq? why ? do you honestly beleive we shouldnt be there ?

[thisyrsmodel]

I'm a bit different than most anti-war people, becuase I innitially supported it, as a matter of fact, under the assumption that the Congress and the President had done their fact-checking and had checked their sources. In fact, I alienated myself (a liberal)from a lot of my more liberal-leaning friends because I supported it so vocally.

Now, however, no, I do not support the Iraq war because it is an endless war, with no visible resolution in sight. I do agree with the comparisons that have been made to Vietnam. I will not say the world isn't better off now that Saddam is gone, of course the world is. But the issue is not as cut and dry as that, I'm afraid. And, George W Bush did lie, knowingly or unknowingly it doesn't matter, to the American people. As the president it's his job to make sure he never sends American troops into harms way without making sure a thousand times over it is the right and just thing to do - as well as making sure there is a way out. Rumsfeld and the President failed on both accounts.

[brentstaples]

heres an idea ,get our teachers to teach our children patriotism and the value of freedom ,so that when people like saddam come along they realize its EVERY americans duty to stamp out opression and tyranny world wide and when someone threatens the U.S. (or its allies)we are obliged to act,not sit and wait for nato to kiss their asses a little longer people are too quick to forget that saddam was in the process of making nuclear weapons when israel blew up the facility a few years ago,wmd's do exist,serin gas has been found in missiles,what more do you need? the guy murdered 600'000 people ,if thats not enough, what is?when is it ok for us to go to war?

[thisyrsmodel]

A-ha, but Iraq had not threatened the United States. Saudi Arabia has done far more threatening things to the U.S. (like Sept.11) than Iraq ever had.

When is it OK for us to go to war? When there is a clear and president danger, a clear enemy. In World War II - the last justified war - there was a clear enemy and a clear way out.

In the case of Saudi Arabia, I would argue it is okay for us to go to war, because the government funded the attacks on September 11, and continue to harbor terrorists - despite slight attempts (3 years after the fact!) to suggest otherwise.

In Iraq, I think the CIA could have easily assasinated Saddam with little fanfare. The CIA has done it before many times, injustly, how come we couldn't have used them now, justly?

[thisyrsmodel]

And it's a dangerous idea to teach patriotism. You either live in and learn about your country and love it that way, or you decide you don't love your country and move. The last governmenets who taught their children blind patriotism were the likes of Nazi Germany and the current North Korean regime....

[thisyrsmodel]

Sorry for the typo - governments*