Why do some want members of Congress and the President to send their children to Iraq?

[PresidentObama]

First off, I'm anti-war. I hate war, and I think it should be the last resort. I thought Bush was wrong from the beginning in invading Iraq, and it's mistake after mistake since. We all know the facts, and know the grime facts: the thousands who have died or been seriously injuried. All the money wasted. It's been a horrifying war, the worst since Vietnam. Very bloody, and very tragic.

With that said as an anti-war liberal Democrat, I pose this question to other anti-war Democrats:

So why do some anti-war Democrats think members of Congress should send their children to Iraq to fight? First off, if you go to Iraq it's your choice. Not your parents. And if they're in the military it means they're 18 years old. The legal age to make their own decisions, and make their own bed and sleep in it. Why should they sacrifice their lives for their parents mistake? Why should they be put in harms way because of the way mommy or daddy votes?

And the same goes with President Bush. Bush is an idiot, plain and simple. And so are his free spirited, alcoholic, and party animal daughters. But did they rush to war? Did they make the decision to go to war? No they did not. George W. Bush did.

I understand the point you all are trying to make. But you should be expecting THEM to go to Iraq, and not their children. It bothers me when that arguement is brought up. No child should die because they have a parent who has bad judgment, and made a history changing mistake!!

[BOSSHOG]

1. You make a very good and may I add another twist?

I truly believe that if children of republicans went to Iraq and got killed their parents would not care; thus negating our hope that they might actually have a conscience when it came to "supporting the troops" by keeping them in harms way forever. I've sincerely discovered that in the past 20 years, those calling themselves conservatives or republicans don't give a fuck about anybody but themselves.

[PresidentObama]

4. They're very selfish. I'm not sure if they wouldn't care, I would hope they would n/t

[solara]

5. Sadly, I have to agree nt

[pampango]

16. I view the Republicans as political opponents and I question

their beliefs, goals, and tactics, but I will never sink to believing that they do not care if their own children die. (I do believe they are too willing to accept casualties to achieve what they perceive as worthwhile goals.)

Maybe Obama is right, if he really means what he says, about the tone of our discourse.

[BOSSHOG]

21. So they are selfish instead of heartless??

Conservatives in this country support our troops by ensuring they continue to die on a daily basis because they are too proud to admit they are wrong. I doubt it matters to them whose kids are dying. I sink because I have to get to their level to discuss them.

[pampango]

35. That's where we disagree. I think it does matter to them whose

kids are dying. Their kids go to elite colleges and get good jobs, regardless of their innate abilities. They do not go to war. If conservatives really didn't care about their kids dying, there would be more of them serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. On some level it gives them too much credit for egalitarianism to contend that they don't care whose kids are dying.

Now "selfish", that's a description that fits them to a tee.

Oh, we don't need to sink to the level of those whom we discuss. Our discourse would become much too thuggish and anti-intellectual whenever we discuss Hitler, Mao, or our current crop of RW politicians.

[Indy_Dem_Defender]

33. I'm estranged

from my republican old man, If I was in the military and was killed over in Iraq he'd look it as a way to make a buck. Whether it's through some insurance scam (he's in the insurance industry) or suing the rest of my family for the rights to my likeness so he could sell buttons, bumper stickers or t-shirts of my image on them. Hell I know he'd take a piece of paper with my signature on it and make a rubber stamp of it so he could make money off 8x10 autograph photos of me.

[loyalsister]

2. Well stated

very important point.

[solara]

3. I think the argument is that if Bush's children or any child of a Senator

or Representative was mandated to serve in Iraq... there wouldn't BE a war over there.


:shrug:

[PresidentObama]

6. Thats the thing though. We don't mandate that anyone should serve in Iraq.

They go because they want to 'fight' for their country. The children of members of Congress and the President's daughters shouldn't be mandated to serve because of their parents awful and stupid mistakes.

[Donnachaidh]

11. that's not entirely true

There are kids who join because of that CASH INCENTIVE the military readily advertises about. Many of those kids don't have the option for access for that amount of cash in real life. They are basically told that if they do a *tour* they will have their entire college education paid for.

Of course, it's not mentioned that they will be sent BACK to Iraq for future tours. And the very real fact that they may not SURVIVE a tour in Iraq is downplayed to a whisper.

The kids of the Congress and Bush don't have to make the SACRIFICES these kids have to take to get an education. It's HANDED to them.

[PresidentObama]

17. Sadly, thats their decision to serve. Again, very sad. :( n/t

[Breeze54]

28. What a crock!

"They go because they want to 'fight' for their country."

Ever heard of Stop-Loss?? It's fucking real!!

If any of them were brave? or stupid enough to vote FOR the IWR,
then they should be willing to go or send/bring their own families!

War would be over, right quick, if that was mandated!

[Tellurian]

36. How do you figure..

"They want to fight" for their country. The National Guard are FORCED to go to Iraq. When most of them enlisted, there was NO War. Not only that, they never enlisted to be combat troops. The role and designation is to protect the terra firma, and US citizens, right here in the US.

[Thothmes]

39. They want to Fight

They were ordered not forced to go to Iraq. Just as they were ordered to the Beaches of Normandy and Guadalcanal, Korea and Viet Nam. You are right though, when many of them enlisted there was no war. But there was no war in 1940, 1948, or 1963 when their fathers and grand fathers enlisted either. They have always enlisted to be combat troops or support for combat troops. They are not now nor have they ever been a "uniformed civil defense corp".

[Tellurian]

44. This is what I meant..

The State National Guard. I'm aware Bush has pushed through a bill to Federalize these troops, which I, however am not in agreement with.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Defense_Forces

[TwilightGardener]

7. Sharing the sacrifice makes everyone think twice.

[PresidentObama]

8. Not when the logic is wrong. No child should be sent because of a parents mistake n/t

[TwilightGardener]

19. If the parents believe in the noble cause, then absolutely, they should

encourage their children to enlist.

[PresidentObama]

22. Maybe so. But again, it's the childs decision. No child should enlist because of a parents mistake.

n/t

[ProSense]

9. Do the Bush twins support the war?

That's the question. If they support the war and aren't campaigning against it, then they are healthy and shouldn't be advocating that someone else's child die for their father's mistake.

[PresidentObama]

10. So we should send them if they support the war? Logic is still wrong. n/t

[ProSense]

14. Who said anything about sending them?

They should volunteer if they believe the war is right and just!

[PresidentObama]

15. I don't know how they feel, I'm sure no matter what they'll support their dads decisions.

But supporting the war or not, every American has the right to make their own mind on whether they want to serve. I'm anti-war, but if I saw a war that was just and was the last resort...I still wouldn't want to volunteer to be a part of it. It's a personal decision. Though I understand your point, and the hypocrisy.

[ProSense]

20. Yes, it's hypocrisy that's deadly for other people.

US Sen John McCain's son to join Marines: report

[PresidentObama]

23. It would be interesting to ask Senator Webb my OP question.

Since he's a fine Democrat, and has a son in Iraq. I'm not sure how he'd answer, but god damn it...I would love hearing his views.

[Breeze54]

32. You're a disgrace to the Kerry name.

asshat.

[pampango]

37. Now there's a positive contribution to the discussion.

:(

I get a lot out of discussions of the "fairness" of a draft versus the "morality" of mandated service. The first side to call the other names loses.

[TankLV]

42. I can't disagree with that statement, either...

simply astounding at the disconnect from reality some have.

ANY thing as great as LIFE AND DEATH as WAR is, I damn well better be willing to PUT MY LIFE ON THE LINE - BEFORE - I ask others to do the same!

The HYPOCRISY of that poster is astounding and as bad as the repukes!

[TankLV]

41. YES! The logic is PERFECT!

If these CHICKENHAWKS are willing to SEND OTHERS TO DO THEIR DIRTY WORK, then THEY should be FORCED to do WHAT THEY ARE FORCING OTHERS TO DO!

It's that simple. It's that LOGICAL.

These CHICKENHAWKS are not willing to PERSONALLY do what they are condemning OTHER to do...

[louis-t]

13. Twins don't even worry their beautiful minds over it.

They've been raised to believe that serving in the military and dying for one's country is for someone else's kids.

[tblue]

12. As a parent, I am much more protective of my child than I am of myself

I would go to Iraq WAY before I'd let my child go. I would die, gladly, before I'd send him over there.

My child is the most vulnerable, most precious part of me. The question we pose is meant to infer, 'Are you willing to sacrifice the one thing in the world you cherish most, even more than yourself, for this war in Iraq?'

I'd go further and ask 'Is your son's eyesight worth this war?' 'His legs?' 'His future happiness?'

I don't want anyone to go and fight in Iraq, but I do want the ones who send people there to think about it in the most delicate and most personal terms. I just want them to stop and think and cut out this freakin nonsense altogether.

[PresidentObama]

18. Mostly agreed. But you can make them stop and think without suggesting they send their children.

Since when do our children face the burden of our mistakes?

EDIT: Actually, no matter what making them stop and think is difficult at best!!

[tblue]

25. No. I think this is the best way to get them to stop and think. Most of them know they are too old

now to go join the military, so they just laugh off any suggestion that they do it. They know they're safe so that gives them a lot of latitude.

[PresidentObama]

26. They'll laugh off any suggestions n/t

[tblue]

30. Ain't that the truth nt

[TankLV]

43. If their children are against this war, then, NO, they shouldn't go either.

but if they are too young, or they do support THE SENDING OF OTHERS TO DO THEIR DIRTY WORK THAT THEY THEMSELVES ARE TOO COWARDLY TO DO, then they yes, they should be FORCED to go before any others...head of the line...it's a simple concept...

the kings and emperor's used to be at the FRONT of their troops until not too long ago...

[mentalsolstice]

24. For the safety of the troops

I really wouldn't want any big-name republican's child over there. To do that, you may as well paint a bullseye on every troop in the child's unit, particularly if the last name is Bush. However, it would be nice to hear that they're volunteering support services, such as helping out with injured troops, etc. And doing so, does not necessarily make a statement of support for the war.

[PresidentObama]

27. Agreed. That I think is a good idea n/t

[Apollo11]

34. Great Britain is sending Prince Harry to Iraq

He is the son of Prince Charles (according to the official record) and a grandson of the Queen.

Of course - it was his choice to join the army, so he is making his own decisions.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6383747.stm

[texanshatingbush]

29. Some things to remember about rePublicans.....

1) Speaker of the House Sam Rayburn was asked by a young reporter: "Mr Sam, aside from the obvious, what is the REAL difference between Republicans & Democrats". Mr Sam cogitated for a moment, then he said: "Son, the REAL difference between Republicans & Democrats is that Republicans pour with a jigger". That is still so true.......not an ounce of compassion or joie de vivre to help them see their fellow man, warts and all, as a brother to be cared for and helped.

2) They disregard Jesus' statement that the poor (the ill, the stupid, the disadvantaged, the uneducated, the whatever-else-is-at-the-bottom-of-the-totem-pole)will always be with us...and expect The Poor to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps. For example, US Senators & Congresspersons have a nice, healthy equivalent of Social Security and of medical insurance. So screw the rest of us who have worries about retirement and health.....if we wanted no worries, we should have run for and won a national office.

[tblue]

31. "screw the rest" is the Republic party platform

[chemenger]

38. IMHO, here is the flaw in your arguement:

"First off, if you go to Iraq it's your choice. Not your parents. And if they're in the military it means they're 18 years old. The legal age to make their own decisions, and make their own bed and sleep in it. Why should they sacrifice their lives for their parents mistake? Why should they be put in harms way because of the way mommy or daddy votes?"

These are the children of the privileged, they do not have to "make their own bed and sleep in it." Their beds are made and have been made with their parents' money.

Why should they sacrifice their lives for their parents mistake? Why should they be put in harms way because of the way mommy or daddy votes?" I can only assume that you're being sarcastic here :sarcasm:. Why should anyone's child (or father or mother for that matter) be put in harm's way because of the way our politicians mishandle foreign policy (or deliberately falsify intelligence just to advance a misguided attempt at global domination as put forth by the PNAC). True, our men and women in military service have chosen that route, but it is because their choices to better themselves and their families is limited. They do not have mommy and daddy's money to open the doors to Ivy League institutions (or to travel to South America for a beer run).

Yea, it is ultimately their choice whether or not to serve their country in time of war by joining the military, BUT (and this is a BIG BUT) some type of public service should be mandatory for the children of politicians and the wealthy, simply because they should not benefit from a free ride just because their parents are part of the privileged class.

[TankLV]

40. If they are not willing PERSONALLY to put their ass where their chickenhawk "support" is, then it is

entirely DEMANDED of them that they stop SENDING OTHER PEOPLE TO DO WHAT THEY PERSONALLY ARE NOT WILLING TO RISK DOING!

THAT is the whole fucking point!