The best speech by a vet in college was by a young guy who had come back from Iraq and was at a university that John McCain was speaking at.  McCain was calling into question many of the reasons we went there and at the end of his speech a group of "patriots", none ever having been in uniform, all wearing Americana from head to toe, stating their support for the war effort and that we belonged in Iraq and support Bush unequivocally.

 

Responding to that, the young Iraq returnee stood up and told those guys that they had no idea what was going on over there and if they were so gung-ho for the war, that there were recruiters in the audience that they could go and talk to afterwards. 

All of the "patriots" just looked at the ground and shuffled their feet.

 

How do you know the guy was in Iraq? Besides, this stuff about shuffling their feet uncomfortably is horseshit. Professional soldiers are paid to fight this country's wars. If the guy was actually in Iraq, and wanted no part of the war, he shouldn't have signed up. He's like a cop who wants to quit the first time the criminal start shooting back. If you want to back the jihadis, you're free to sign up anytime - I understand they're looking for English-speakers who blend.

I get the [expletive deleted] with that arguement too. Its like just because somebody hasn't served operationally in the military that they are supposed to stop having an opinion on the geo-political decisions made by their leaders. While I have the greatest degree of respect for people who choose to serve, they have to realise that serving means that when you sign on the dotted line you are agreeing to do what a bunch of civilians who have no combat experience tells you to.

The reverse works as well.  The 'chickenhawk' argument - which is meant to shut down a discussion of the war -  is a bs argument. To apply it, then anyone leftie who claimed that Afghanistan was the 'good war', should have signed up immediately or made their child go.

 

Just because a topic is NOT one's vocation DOES NOT disqualify one from talking about it, otherwise NO ONE except for the 535 members of our congress would be the ONLY ones allowed to talk about national politics.

 

On second thought, maybe that's a good idea = in a dictatoriship.

 

Totally specious reasoning, as usual.

 

 

swhitebull

>>

<<

 

No war can ever start with that logic.

 

Since no one has ever been there, no one can advocate for it, and no war can ever start. 

 

The next time a war starts with a syllogism, I'll rush to find you so you can stop it at its inception.

 

And just for grins and giggles, I volunteered 33 years ago. My children volunteered, God bless them, and they're serving now.  

If I'm not mistaken Darth has served in Iraq.

 

 

It comes down to put up or shut up, especially those who berate people who are against the war and yet don't volunteer.

What about those of us who are physically unable to join the military?  Are we just supposed to be quiet?  I suspect so.

 

My question was about Goldsmith, Nan.  Put up or shut up.

 

 

Not really. I am for law enforcement, but don't have any interest in becoming a policeman. I am for nursing care, but have no interest in becoming a nurse. I could equally come up with a litmus test of my own - people who don't support this war are traitors, and the only way they can prove they are not, is by signing to fight in the war (on our side, not the jihadis'). How about people who are against the war are cowards who fear a draft, and can only prove that they are not cowards by volunteering to fight in the war (on either side, ours or the jihadis').