[political] Clear me on WMD arithmetics

[Joe Pluta]

Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:
To prove that I am not being paranoid (or at least that it's not ony me who is being paranoid).
"The American people were manipulated," bluntly declares one person from the Defense Intelligence Agency who says he was privy to all the intelligence there on Iraq.

Map, my only problem with this quote is that it is a single, unattributed quote in a paper that's famous for being anti-Bush. Whenever someone says "declares one person from..." without an actual name attached, it immediately loses 90-95% of its credibility with me.
On the other hand, I will say that I agree with your position that the war was oversold. I don't think we needed any of that butt-covering malarky that went on; that was just political spin. But unfortunately these days so much of life is about spin control that you can't say it's dark outside at night without a disclaimer.
Anyway, it's neither here nor there. People who hate America will continue to do so. And interestingly enough it won't stop alot of them from working here in the United States or from working for companies that provide consulting to American firms. So what does that say about people's ethics? I don't know. But like I said, I am morally and ethically VERY comfortable with the actions of my country in this case, except that they should have done it a decade earlier.
Joe

[R K Singh]

Ravish, in case you do not realize, ...It's a good idea to apologize

I apologize to all if I hurt anyone's sentiments/emotions. It was not intentional.
[ July 28, 2003: Message edited by: Ravish Kumar ]

[Axel Janssen]

I often get the impression from these discussions that people get upset against Americans, because:
- on the one hand they like quite much bragging around with their americanishnes and this often goes against other countries. Brits as ally in WW2 were "more an anoyance", french can't defend themselves, europeans have war, fuzzy socialist feelings, etc. pp.
- on the other hand they hate other people critizising the United States of America.
Maybe the mexicans and canadians are used to this style after 150 years (or 80 years, if we include the cross border activities during mexican revolution) of being mostly peaceful neighbours. But in Europe nobody could do that, because there are so many countries. Mutual respect is necesary.

[Jason Menard]

Originally posted by Ravish Kumar:

Joe, problem is, when reasonable people are shown reasonable pics they think it is adult movie.
[ July 27, 2003: Message edited by: Ravish Kumar ]

You are operating under the impression that I actually believed that was a picture from a Japanese adult movie? ROFLMAO! That's rich.

[Jason Menard]

Joe Said: it is my belief that without the contributions of the United States to the art, science, literature, peace, health, safety and liberty of the world, that the world would be a poorer place.
RK: Are you trying to say that this world is existing becaues US exist.
I'm not trying to speak for Joe here, but what he said above is pretty clear and obvious imho, and it wasn't anything remotely close to "this world is existing becauses US exist".
Looks like you are in impression that US does all things for charity.
Can you tell me the reason, why US did not give Super computer[Cray X-MP] tech to India in mid 80s early 90s ??
How does India manage to creep into just about every single thread in this forum?
[ July 27, 2003: Message edited by: Jason Menard ]

[Joe Pluta]

Originally posted by Jason Menard:
I'm not trying to speak for Joe here, but what he said above is pretty clear and obvious imho, and it wasn't anything remotely close to "this world is existing becauses US exist".

You're absolutely correct, Jason. That's not what I said. I simply said the world is better because the US exists. I find it difficult to believe that anyone could objectively say otherwise, given the amount of humanitarian aid and support we have given to the world. The reason I find the anti-American sentiment so frustrating is that nearly every person with the technology to post an anti-American bias on these lists comes from a country that has directly or indirectly benefited from US aid. Are we arrogant? Yes indeed we are at times. But we are also helpful, kind, generous and big-hearted.
In fact, anybody who thinks the US is all about greed ought to spend a year in the Peace Corp or any of the other organizations I mentioned. You'd find quickly that it's just not true. Anyway, we've hit the crux of this. Some people simply hate America. It doesn't matter how much good we do, they will always hate us. They are rigid in their beliefs and unwilling to compromise, and it's unproductive to continue conversations with them.
That being said, it's time for me to go on. I really didn't want to be drawn into this, and I just don't have the time to continue addressing the same issues. I only hope I've made my view clear.
Ravish, I thank you for your input, but it's probably not productive to continue our debate. At this point, I don't think you're going to be swayed by anything I say, and I find your position to be untenable, so we're at a point where we just need to agree to disagree.
Map, Axel, your insights have been useful. Thank you for taking the time to present them. I will remember this in my dealings with others who are critical of my country; there are real and justified reasons to take exception with American policy and especially American propaganda.
I have learned from this, and that's all I can ask. Thank you again.
Joe

[Joe Pluta]

Originally posted by Ravish Kumar:
is this the conflict of egos ??

Yes, egos are of course involved. In fact, because it has become basically an issue of egos, I'm quitting this thread. However, I would ask you one final question:
Is the world a better or worse place because the US exists? It is a simple question, and it requires a one word answer: better or worse? If you answer anything else, it will indicate to me that you would rather argue than communicate.
Thank you.
Joe
P.S. I suppose you could answer "neither", but we both know that's not true. America either has had a positive effect on the world or a negative one. I ask you to tell us your opinion, with no extraneous argument.

[R K Singh]

And I have said 100 times, I dont represent India or anyone else. I represent myself.
And worst part, it applies to all.
[ July 28, 2003: Message edited by: Ravish Kumar ]

[Mapraputa Is]

What's going on here...
I suppose Ravish mentioned India for the same reason I keep up talking about Russia or Axel about Germany -- because this is something we know better. On the other hand, Jason's question was a little surly, sure, but not anything beyond decency...
[ July 27, 2003: Message edited by: Mapraputa Is ]

[Mapraputa Is]

Axel wrote: But in Europe nobody could do that, because there are so many countries. Mutual respect is necesary.
Axel, do you notice any difference regarding inner political life? I came across this quote:
"The Dutch are well-read and have strong political opinions, but political debate is a search for compromise and understanding, not the acrimonious, intolerant and adversarial rage of overstatement, attack and extremism that seems to prevail in North America."
http://blogs.salon.com/0002007/categories/politicsEconomics/
-- no idea how true this is about the Dutch, but what about Germans?
You probably remember, we once got a Dutch here who was apparently shocked by the style of debates and left calling us "ugly rednecks" and other assorted names. I wondered if this was something individual or maybe political life in the Netherlands is different.

[Mapraputa Is]

Joe said: I simply said the world is better because the US exists. I find it difficult to believe that anyone could objectively say otherwise, given the amount of humanitarian aid and support we have given to the world.
For one thing, I am afraid other countries mass-medias tend to under-report (is there such a word?) the amount of humanitarian aid the US gives to the world. Stop an average Russian on the street and ask about "humanitarian aid the US gave to the world", most likely you'll hear "Humanitarian aid? What humanitarian aid?" These people are not guilty, they are simply misinformed.
Another thing, Latino people I talked to are all pretty bitter about the US, here I have no idea how objective their pretensions are.
What I am trying to say... Do not assume that everybody has access to the same information you have, and that this Everybody guy can escape listening to anti-American sentiments from all four (or more?) sides his ears can be tuned to.
Gee, now it's me who sounds condescending. :roll:
[ July 28, 2003: Message edited by: Mapraputa Is ]

[Axel Janssen]

Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:
You probably remember, we once got a Dutch here who was apparently shocked by the style of debates and left calling us "ugly rednecks" and other assorted names. I wondered if this was something individual or maybe political life in the Netherlands is different.

Yes. I remember. I remember, too, Johannes de Jong telling him he should stop with moralistic fingerpointing, so typical dutch. And this guy is bad example, because he heavily attacked people personaly.
The Netherlands are extremly densly populated (people/qkm2) for generations and were among the first who had democratic institutions. Maybe this has some effect (but not for the guy talked about above).
But generalizations are dangerous. For example there were realy quite heavy xenophobia outrages in Denmark last years. And nobody expected this from that nice, small, democratic country.
Might sound arogant, but especially in Foreign Policies the thinking of the mayority often is steered by prejudices and not by analysis in all societies, I firmly believe. For example the huge popular oposition in Germany against Euro-currency grounded in "currency will be weak because of portugues, spanish, italian politics". Now it looks that our finances are going to infringe against stability criteria for 2-3 consecutive years. Have to pay the penalties for which inclusion we fighted so hard for 8 years ago.

Also I am developing a theory that the firmer integration of Europe might strengthen anti-US prejudices in a way. And in a way the USA has scapegoat role for quite a few people here. Recently I've seen a discussion in a german programmer forum about collecting money to poor children in Brazil and there was a posting:
"[...] we should give them technological aid that they could help themselves and not sending them agricultural excess-production (which drives local markets down) like americans [...]. Well, this kind of politics was and partly is common practise for America and (even more) EU. But this "turbo-capitalistic" behaviour is attached to the USA.
I think people tend to support emotionally easier more problematic countries. For example, Russia is very popular in Europe these days, polls show. In my city we have now russian bar with beer with blue etiquete (can't remember spelling), and every drink goes with wodka, slightly changing name (for example Caipirosca not Caipirinha).
Axel
btw. found another mostly european vs. american WMDs debate in weblog of famous open source programmer Rickard Oberg. web page
[ July 28, 2003: Message edited by: Axel Janssen ]
[ July 28, 2003: Message edited by: Axel Janssen ]

[R K Singh]

Is the world a better or worse place because the US exists? It is a simple question, and it requires a one word answer: better or worse?
better.
[ July 28, 2003: Message edited by: Ravish Kumar ]

[R K Singh]

Originally posted by Joe Pluta:
I will remember this in my dealings with others who are critical of my country;

Please correct me if I am wrong... but I think the reason you are feeling uncomfortable in this thread because you are thinking that we are talkign about YOUR country.
But seriously, I or I think none of us has any intention to talk about your country.
Atleast I am talking about US, which happend to be your country.
I have never used word my country or your country.
I dont know how much this analogy fits here but if my brother is murderer, you will call him murderer and it will hurt me too.
I think, I was wrong, but believe me I was not talking about YOUR country.
[ July 28, 2003: Message edited by: Ravish Kumar ]

[Thomas Paul]

Can you tell me the reason, why US did not give Super computer[Cray X-MP] tech to India in mid 80s early 90s ??
I guess the question is, why do you think the US should give patented technology to India? Thinking back to the mid-80s, wasn't India pro-USSR at the time? Do you think the US might have been worried that super computer technology might have been passed to the USSR? And wasn't India working on their own super computer technology? Do you think that the US should have taken patented hardware from Cray Technology Inc. and just handed it over to a potential competitor?

[Amit Agrawal]

Differing from the current debate, Did any body tried searching


Weapons of Mass Destruction


on Google? Just Type this on Google and hit I'm Lucky Button. See wat u get.

[Jason Menard]

Not actually WMDs, but it does point to a larger pattern:
Iraqi aircraft 'buried in desert'

[Daniel Almond]

Bottom line in my view....
Anyone who supports the war and Bush can go over to Iraq with the 82nd by volunteering if they want to and put their own boots on the ground and lives on the line. Until anyone does that they are just talking. Much like Bush who says "Bring'em on" (by the way I'll be at my ranch in Texas). I got out of the army in 2000 and it is my friends who are over there where they don't want to be away from their families with a chance of dieing every day. People in the U.S. should think about this when they drive around with a flag sticker on their car and think they are patriots and can include themselves in the "we" that is doing something.

[Paul Stevens]

Originally posted by Daniel Almond:
Bottom line in my view....
Anyone who supports the war and Bush can go over to Iraq with the 82nd by volunteering if they want to and put their own boots on the ground and lives on the line. Until anyone does that they are just talking. Much like Bush who says "Bring'em on" (by the way I'll be at my ranch in Texas). I got out of the army in 2000 and it is my friends who are over there where they don't want to be away from their families with a chance of dieing every day. People in the U.S. should think about this when they drive around with a flag sticker on their car and think they are patriots and can include themselves in the "we" that is doing something.

Did you hold the same views when Clinton sent troops here and there? If you didn't there is a word for that.

[Eleison Zeitgeist]

Originally posted by Daniel Almond:
Bottom line in my view....
Anyone who supports the war and Bush can go over to Iraq with the 82nd by volunteering if they want to and put their own boots on the ground and lives on the line. Until anyone does that they are just talking. Much like Bush who says "Bring'em on" (by the way I'll be at my ranch in Texas). I got out of the army in 2000 and it is my friends who are over there where they don't want to be away from their families with a chance of dieing every day. People in the U.S. should think about this when they drive around with a flag sticker on their car and think they are patriots and can include themselves in the "we" that is doing something.

I see nothing wrong with people supporting the war by displaying the flag. Just because you are not a soldier does not mean you cannot have a say. ALso, some people are not meant to be soldiers. If they enrolled they would be more of a determent to the arm forces. Not everyone is a natural born killer (soldier material). Also, remember when wars happens, it is not all about the soldiers on the front, but people behind the scenes supporting them - scientist, suppliers, manufactors, tactians, etc...
REmember all the missles, bullits, GPS, a-bombs, night vision, kelvar jackets, drones, jdams etc... didn't just invent themselves, they had to be developed by some one (mostly american pencil necks hidden in cubicals way behind enemey lines)... nor did they just magically appear; they had to be bought by moeny, money that the american people ponyed up via taxes...
Without the nation working together (the "we"), the soldiers would be as well-equiped, well-trained, as a third world country -- he would be dead in a second.
You got out of the the army in 2000 --- I'm glad. I doubt the US army needs people like you. They want team players... You obviously know nothing about that... you only know about "boots on the ground"... whining like a p*ssy (godd*m it, you were once a soldier act like it!!!)... and bad mouthing your superiors... By the way, just in case you never knew, the army serves the american people.
-Eleison
ps. Having just saw the complete "band of brothers," Daniel Almond's comment got me so ridded up..not sure if its a good thing :-)
[ August 02, 2003: Message edited by: Eleison Zeitgeist ]

[Axel Janssen]

Originally posted by Eleison Zeitgeist:

Not everyone is a natural born killer (soldier material).

I would call this plain arrogance. In my view, during war everybody is converted to a killer, because shoot or getting shot is the rule of the game and human beings are great in adapting when environment is serious enough.
One has to take into account that soldiers on the front:
- incure the risk to be killed
- might be traumatized
War is now in some aspects differnent from what it was then, but I recommend this very interesting book from a author with WWI experience:
only 1.25 dollar as a used book and really good
[ August 02, 2003: Message edited by: Axel Janssen ]

[Daniel Almond]

ok ok, you can say that i'm whining if you want but i am just trying to generate concern over the fact that some of mt friends have a chance of dying in the coming months. really the name calling was a little uncalled for. remember that band of brothers is a MOVIE. there is reason that government doesn't let out pictures of american dead and that is because war is a gruesome thing and the people who end up in bits and pieces leave crying family members at home. no one would have the stomach to send their fellow americans to die if they really saw what was happening to them. i know i couldn't make that order. and if that doesn't make a person a team player then i really don't see who would want to play on the team that included people who would send them to die anyway. and come on, no one can serioously say say that someone who invented kevlar or fixed the air conditioners in the base has as much of a stake in what happens in the war as the infantryman on the ground.
as for clinton i really don't remember 160,000 troops being forward deployed to one area while he was in office so i'll stick to my belief that he was a bit more peaceful than the current pres.
everyone has to understand that most people in the army really would rather be at home than be deployed. this fact is hidden by the PR campaign and that soldiers really can't speak out at all.
i am sorry if you took the flag on the car thing personally, wasn't talking to anyone in particular. if you would like to continue to talk please give yourself some cooldown time after watching war MOVIES. however if you really like them my fav is Hamburger Hill....

[Max Habibi]

Originally posted by Eleison Zeitgeist:

You got out of the the army in 2000 --- I'm glad. I doubt the US army needs people like you. They want team players... You obviously know nothing about that... you only know about "boots on the ground"... whining like a p*ssy (godd*m it, you were once a soldier act like it!!!)... and bad mouthing your superiors... By the way, just in case you never knew, the army serves the american people.
[ August 02, 2003: Message edited by: Eleison Zeitgeist ]

This sort of language is inapproriate here, no matter what your political convictions are.
M

[Jason Menard]

Originally posted by Daniel Almond:
Anyone who supports the war and Bush can go over to Iraq with the 82nd by volunteering if they want to and put their own boots on the ground and lives on the line. Until anyone does that they are just talking.

The job of the military is to help implement national policy, and anyone who is a citizen has enough stake on national policy to have a valid opinion on how that policy should be carried out.
I got out of the army in 2000 and it is my friends who are over there where they don't want to be away from their families with a chance of dieing every day.
Of course nobody wants to be away from their family in a combat zone, but they knew that was a possibility when they signed on the dotted line and raised their right hand. I seem to remember swearing to protect my country from "all enemies, foreign and domestic". I don't recall swearing to protect my country from "all enemies foreign and domestic, unless I get homesick or unless it gets too dangerous". While I do sympathize deeply with everyone over there, I also am quite aware that it is their job and it's what they signed up to do knowing full well all that such a commitment could entail.
People in the U.S. should think about this when they drive around with a flag sticker on their car and think they are patriots and can include themselves in the "we" that is doing something.
And others might want to keep in mind that many of these people who are doing this have either already done their time, or have close family in the military, and as such, just like every other American, have more than enough right to express their opinion on the subject. It's not only people who put on the uniform that are patriots.
[ August 02, 2003: Message edited by: Jason Menard ]

[R K Singh]

just 2 cents.
Supporting soldiers in war is different from being anti-GW-2.
One can support its soldier and could have different opinion for GW-2.
Nationalism does not mean to support nation even for wrong things.
[did I use word america/US ?]

[Daniel Almond]

that's cool man... you know how it is. i just think that for too many people the flag sticker on the car is a pretty empty gesture of support as they drive their SUV's and increase the nation's dependence of foreign sources of oil. if the draft was started again and everybody had to go i think the story would be different. i remember the whole swearing in thing, just got tired of other people being able to pick exactly who those foreign and domestic enemies were. sure, anyone would fight if the US got invaded or something but picking wars with people who weren't fighting us is not what too many people i know signed up to do. if the job was that great and soldiers felt like they wre helping a country that wanted their help, they wouldn't need tightening up. can you really fault me for not wanting some people i know to be put into harm's way for marginal reasons?

as an aside, but not getting too personal jason why did you get out with only 8 years left to retirement?

[Jason Menard]

Originally posted by Daniel Almond:
i remember the whole swearing in thing, just got tired of other people being able to pick exactly who those foreign and domestic enemies were.

Other people get paid to decide how national policy needs to be carried out. The military just has to go and do what they're told. Those who have to do the fighting can have an opinion on whether or not they personally feel something is worth fighting for, but when it comes down to ti that opinion doesn't really matter. They just need to go and do what they're told. The job is left to other people who know quite a bit more than us about international politics and how things threaten our national interests and security to figure out what actions need to be taken to defend those interests.

picking wars with people who weren't fighting us is not what too many people i know signed up to do.

Would I be wrong in assuming you weren't over in that part of the world in '91? I can say beyond any shadow of a doubt that removing his regime was a moral thing to do. But again, these people joined the military and should have been going in wit their eyes wide open.

can you really fault me for not wanting some people i know to be put into harm's way for marginal reasons?

Nobody wants their friends to be in harm's way. On the other hand they signed up for it When I was in and their was a conflict, there was never any shortage of volunteers willing to go and put their skills to use where they were most needed.
I will say though that Clinton's gutting of the military made things more difficult for the average soldier/airman/sailor/marine. After cutting our numbers tremendously, he then goes and gets us involved in many more places. He decimated our numbers and then increases operational tempo. And they wondered why people were leaving in droves in the late 90's (particularly those who had put in 10-15 years already). You had a good economy which was definitely a major factor, but Clinton's cutbacks meant that many could expect near constant deployments to such wonderful places as Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Bosnia. It does tend to wear thin after awhile. If Clinton had kept our numbers at Cold War levels, the burden of these deployments would have been spread out amongst a greater number of units and would have been easier for folks to deal with. Clinton has probably done more damage to our military than any foreign power could do.

as an aside, but not getting too personal jason why did you get out with only 8 years left to retirement?

Just decided to make a career change. I had opportunities where I was at as my enlistment was coming to an end, that I might not have had if I re-upped and got sent somewhere else.
[ August 03, 2003: Message edited by: Jason Menard ]

[Mapraputa Is]

Axel: War is now in some aspects differnent from what it was then, but I recommend this very interesting book from a author with WWI experience
Remarque's "Three Comrades" is my mother's favorite book!

[Daniel Almond]

you are correct, i wasn't i that part of the world in '91. neither was i in any of the myriad of other countries where bad things were happening to people. does this mean that the US should invade and change the regimes of every one? or does it just mean that iraq's siginificance in the world oil market somehow makes it special for us. i personally would rather see the 80 billion plus however much more it takes be spent on things like schools which could work on developing alternative sources of energy to reduce the US dependence on foreign oil. as for pres clinton's gutting of the military, he probably didn't forsee the drastic swing to a hardline policy that was willing to put american soldiers into a quagmire where a constant deployment of 160,000 would be needd for at least 4 years. at least i didn't see that one coming. i, and most of the rest of the world except for the leaders who did support the war, thought that the policy of containment waws working ok and nobody really thought that saddam was going to attack anybody after the trouncing he got in '91. if he would have, the Us could have gone back and finished the job of removing him from power with all the international support it needed.
back to the caring human side though, if you had a kid would you be encouraging him/her to sign up for the infantry right now, since the mission is so just and vital? if you would, i think the recruiter's office is open with no waiting....

[Vinod John]

Originally posted by Daniel Almond:
however if you really like them my fav is Hamburger Hill....

Very good one, it really changed my perception about war ... and now I hate others fighting (war) for me (/us) ... I may support war only if I fight in the frontline (which will never happen).

[Jason Menard]

Originally posted by Daniel Almond:
you are correct, i wasn't i that part of the world in '91. neither was i in any of the myriad of other countries where bad things were happening to people.

Then it is possible that some can't grasp the magnitude of suffering that went on in places like Iraq, particularly if all they know of it is what they caught on the nightly news perhaps. I would like to think that being the decent human beings that we are that we would be willing to stand up and do the right thing every now and then.
does this mean that the US should invade and change the regimes of every one? or does it just mean that iraq's siginificance in the world oil market somehow makes it special for us.
I personally have no problem if the civilized world would intervene in any country wherever a regime like Hussein's exist. Most of the world doesn't have the will or the means to shoulder such responsibilites however. As far as Iraq's significance, it is for the reasons that have been repeated ad nauseum, all those silly little conspiracy theories aside.
i personally would rather see the 80 billion plus however much more it takes be spent on things like schools which could work on developing alternative sources of energy to reduce the US dependence on foreign oil.
I on the other hand have no problem in making sacrafices to provide for the long term security of our nation, meet our international responsibilities even if others are unwilling to meet theirs, and remove one of the world's most despotic rulers along the way. Seems like a small price to pay.
as for pres clinton's gutting of the military, he probably didn't forsee the drastic swing to a hardline policy that was willing to put american soldiers into a quagmire where a constant deployment of 160,000 would be needd for at least 4 years. at least i didn't see that one coming.
Ah yes, it was a policy that's responsible for this. It had nothing to do with a few airliners slamming into a few buildings and a field in Pennsylvania. It had nothing to do with a continued flaunting of UN resolutions.
i, and most of the rest of the world except for the leaders who did support the war, thought that the policy of containment waws working ok and nobody really thought that saddam was going to attack anybody after the trouncing he got in '91.
Do you think the Israeli victims of Iraqi sponsored Palestinian terrorism thought containment was working? What do you think about all of the US and UK troops who have been being shot at repeatedly while enforcing the no-fly zones? How do you think they felt about containment? What about the Iraqi people suffering under sanctions since Hussein embezzled any humanitarian relief and the oil-for-food funds? I'm sure they would have been happy to live under these sanctions indefinitely. How about the Iraqi Kurds, Shia, and other oppressed people in Iraq, being murdered and imprisoned? How do you think they felt about containment?
if he would have, the Us could have gone back and finished the job of removing him from power with all the international support it needed.
Why would you expect support any time from people who were doing everything in their power to see that Hussein was never held accountable to any of the UN Resolutions? If France and Russia had not been supporting him with such vigor, this issue would have been resolved long ago.
back to the caring human side though, if you had a kid would you be encouraging him/her to sign up for the infantry right now, since the mission is so just and vital?
Would I encourage my son to help his country and others? Of course. Who wouldn't? Never mind, no need to answer that.
if you would, i think the recruiter's office is open with no waiting....
You might want to double check that. Military recruitment has already far surpassed its goals up to this point this year.

[R K Singh]

:roll:

[Jason Menard]

Originally posted by Ravish Kumar:
:roll:

How insightful.

[Daniel Almond]

hey, man if you are truly willing to donate yourself and your kids to the cause then more power to you and i hope you come back ok and accomplish what goals you have while your deployed. and i hope your kids come back without any injuries too. i just wish that the rest of the pres/congress/advisors had the same attitude towards self-sacrifice. however, since only one person in congress actually has a kid in the military and they are in the air force they don't have enough risk to themselves to be preempting war on others. much like vietnam(which bush handily skipped;so there is his case for morals and self sacrifice), the army now is still composed mostly of young men and women who didn't have the finances to go to college and skip out on the fighting. i think as long as congress can get the job done without anyone they know risking their necks than war is worth it to them but it would be a differeent story if there was a draft army with no college-out and everyone had to ante up. i hear a lot of young republicans in college talking up the war too, all the while kicking it quite comfortably in the dorm with their parents money giving them security.

i hear ya vinod, my attitude was pretty much the same before i saw that movie because of my own experiences in the army and it pretty much solidified them.
real leaders lead from the front

[Daniel Almond]

and the recruiter's office is ALWAYS open with no wait(no matter how many people they have)....

[Jason Menard]

Originally posted by Daniel Almond:
since only one person in congress actually has a kid in the military and they are in the air force...

You're not implying that USAF personnel all hang back out of harm's way are you?

[Daniel Almond]

no, the pilots see the most action of anyone at all. but the majority of them are back at the air base servicing planes.

[Daniel Almond]

here is my mom's question after i begged for her to let me sign up before i was 18. "dan, don't you want to have a warm bed to sleep in and decent food to eat? at least talk to the air force recruiter." i was like ok i'll talk. but then i was like, no, if i am going to be in the military, i'll at least have a job to remember. and so started my career as a paratrooper being used as a tool to implement national policy. then, 44 jumps later my time was up and now i am using my gi bill to gain a college education.

[Jason Menard]

Originally posted by Daniel Almond:
"dan, don't you want to have a warm bed to sleep in and decent food to eat?

Unfortunately the reality is all too often a little different.

[Daniel Almond]

come on jason, i know you are proud of being in the air force(i am assuming) and it is noble and everything but even you have to admit that it is quite a bit different than the infantry. and most air bases are no where near the front line of any war. why would they be, they are much too valuable to risk. the air force is the most significant part of the military and is the reason the US has dominated in last few conflicts it has fought in, but apart from the 3-4%that are pilots or combat controller/pararescue people most are not in the country that the war is going on in. yeah, having a kid in the air force or navy wouldn't be bad because there is almost no risk apart from accidents.