The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

[Jimjamesak]

Dressing your bull sh*t up in the reassuring balm of lefty equivocation doesn't change what it is: advocating death (or at least the risk of death) for the sons of people who disagree with you.

No, it's a simple statement. If you want this country to go to war then line your * up to fight like the rest. In almost all cases they're not voting to send their families to fight and that effects their stances.

I'm sorry but I'm tired of seeing my generation fight and die or be physically destroyed or mentally destroyed AGAIN for people that, by and large, do not want us there. Is this some kind of baby boomer revenge for Vietnam? Like, you guys got *ed up, couldn't stick it to Gen X so let's stick it to Gen Y?

 

[Rover]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

No, it's a simple statement. If you want this country to go to war then line your * up to fight like the rest. In almost all cases they're not voting to send their families to fight and that effects their stances.

I'm sorry but I'm tired of seeing my generation fight and die or be physically destroyed or mentally destroyed AGAIN for people that, by and large, do not want us there. Is this some kind of baby boomer revenge for Vietnam? Like, you guys got *ed up, couldn't stick it to Gen X so let's stick it to Gen Y?

Exactly right. Never liked Michael Moore as he's a conspiracy theorist, but he made two great points in Fahrenheit 9/11, which was out of all the members of Congress only one had a kid fighting in Iraq, and that whenever recruiters go out trying to sign people up, they go to the poorest neighborhoods and not the wealthy ones, since the people who are most willing to answer the call to arms are the ones who get the least back from society.

To their credit, a good amount of USCHO conservatives are against boots on the ground in Iraq/Syria based on their posts out here. Its really just the usual old dead enders, who most likely were never around when the shooting started in their own war ala Dick Cheney, advocating another ground war. Funniest moment yet own the talk show circuit was when some lady called out Bill Kristol to his face, telling him if he wanted to go to war so bad why doesn't he sign up for the Iraqi Army. As you could expect, he didn't have an answer.

 

[SJHovey]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

No, it's a simple statement. If you want this country to go to war then line your * up to fight like the rest. In almost all cases they're not voting to send their families to fight and that effects their stances.

I'm sorry but I'm tired of seeing my generation fight and die or be physically destroyed or mentally destroyed AGAIN for people that, by and large, do not want us there. Is this some kind of baby boomer revenge for Vietnam? Like, you guys got *ed up, couldn't stick it to Gen X so let's stick it to Gen Y?

There are about 42 million people in their 20's in the U.S. right now. I think the casualty figures for Iraq/Afghanistan are probably somewhere in the 5000-6000 range. If the wounded figures follow historical averages, they're probably 3x or 4x the number of dead. Obviously tragic for those involved, but I'm pretty sure your "generation" is going to survive the carnage.

Offspring of the wealthy and privileged have been playing the role of "fortunate son" since medieval times, and probably before. But the nice thing is, and as the media reminds us, the wealthy and privileged make up such a tiny percentage of the population in this country, their kids won't hardly be missed.

 

[St. Clown]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

There are about 42 million people in their 20's in the U.S. right now. I think the casualty figures for Iraq/Afghanistan are probably somewhere in the 5000-6000 range. If the wounded figures follow historical averages, they're probably 3x or 4x the number of dead. Obviously tragic for those involved, but I'm pretty sure your "generation" is going to survive the carnage.

Offspring of the wealthy and privileged have been playing the role of "fortunate son" since medieval times, and probably before. But the nice thing is, and as the media reminds us, the wealthy and privileged make up such a tiny percentage of the population in this country, their kids won't hardly be missed.

During the Middle Ages, the nobility's kids weren't exempt from fighting, they were there right with the commoners. The difference between them at the time was that the upperclass had the latest armor and weaons while the commoners had a leather jerkin, if they were lucky, and a pike, pitchfork, low quality sword or something similar, and the commoners were part of the first wave of the attack while the nobility would either be further back in the pack or part of the cavalry.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

To their credit, a good amount of USCHO conservatives are against boots on the ground in Iraq/Syria based on their posts out here. Its really just the usual old dead enders, who most likely were never around when the shooting started in their own war ala Dick Cheney, advocating another ground war. Funniest moment yet own the talk show circuit was when some lady called out Bill Kristol to his face, telling him if he wanted to go to war so bad why doesn't he sign up for the Iraqi Army. As you could expect, he didn't have an answer.

Indeed. In fact it has been remarkable that the people in the right wing think tanks that have been the most bellicose are the very ones who worked the system to obtain every deferment so their own precious hide was never at risk. The chicken hawk wing of the GOP is far less powerful now than it was in 2000, and that reflects well on American conservatives who have had enough of the Cheneys and Kristols and Kagans. The Neocons were always a weird cross-breeding of Ivory tower intellectuals with zero real life experience who spun delicate webs of justification on highly questionable philosophical assumptions -- Leo Strauss and all his apostles -- grafted onto a hardcore cynical group who saw their opportunity to use an available tool to drive through their agenda and make a killing, both at the bank and at the morgue -- the Cheneys and their ilk. It sounds like the typical Republican no longer listens to either group, and the only reason they get any oxygen at all is they blanket talk shows 24/7 shilling their books and bankrupt ideas.

What the right needs, however, is a credible set of foreign policy objectives to rally around. They've sucked out some of the poison, which is great, but for pure political reasons they must also always find fault with whatever any Democrat suggests. The obvious solution -- to come up with their own plan -- they have so far failed to do. It's as if they're so exhausted from their civil war that they don't have time to actually build anything new.

 

[Rover]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

During the Middle Ages, the nobility's kids weren't exempt from fighting, they were there right with the commoners. The difference between them at the time was that the upperclass had the latest armor and weaons while the commoners had a leather jerkin, if they were lucky, and a pike, pitchfork, low quality sword or something similar, and the commoners were part of the first wave of the attack while the nobility would either be further back in the pack or part of the cavalry.

You need not go back that far. The British upper class was decimated by WWI (and no, I didn't learn that from Downtown Abbey) and in WWII FDR's son fought in Guadalcanal I believe.

With the possible exception of Jim Webb, I'm not aware of any Senator or House member over the past decade or so who's had a child see combat overseas. I'd be happy to know if anybody else has, but again I haven't seen it reported.

 

[FadeToBlack&Gold]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

Dressing your bull sh*t up in the reassuring balm of lefty equivocation doesn't change what it is: advocating death (or at least the risk of death) for the sons of people who disagree with you.

Listen you miserable old POS, I'm advocating that every member of this godd@mn government, not just the Republicans, would benefit from some perspective. After all, plenty of Democrats voted for land wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, so culpability for those military blunders hardly rests solely with conservatives.

Arguing with you is like arguing with a sack of potatoes - dense and insipid.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

Listen you miserable old POS, I'm advocating that every member of this godd@mn government, not just the Republicans, would benefit from some perspective. After all, plenty of Democrats voted for land wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, so culpability for those military blunders hardly rests solely with conservatives.

Arguing with you is like arguing with a sack of potatoes - dense and insipid.

Hardly rests? Bush lied. It's the most impeachable offense ever perpetrated by a sitting President to lie to go to War and yet he skated through. Just goes to show that War is easy for the country while sex is not.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

Offspring of the wealthy and privileged have been playing the role of "fortunate son" since medieval times, and probably before.

The three Medieval orders were "those who pray, those who fight, and those who work." Aristocratic prestige and power lay in battlefield strength and heroics. They actually did fight, and quite often died, in their wars. Likewise, their descendant families, powerful because they held on to the land that was originally granted them by the sovereign for their military service, had a consuming need to keep up at least the trapping but often the substance of an honor culture, and populated the officer corps of their respective nations with their sons right up through WW1. Even in WW2 it was not unusual for wealthy families to lose sons on the battlefield.

There have been "fortunate sons" in all periods, sure -- in the Civil War wealthy people paid surrogates to fight for them -- but American conservative leaders' overtly cynical combination of preaching for endless war while curled up in the protected womb of unearned multi-generational privilege is a marked contrast to the way the wealthy have approached "la gloire" in the past. It's as if the conservative movement took as its model the most cowardly, weaselly people of the past and made that their central operating plan.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

If that is Kepler's intent, he's not so sharp after all. Politicians would make sure their kids got high numbers, or a safe spot at home in the National Guard, just like the old days.

Kepler's intent was obvious from Kepler's statement. Pio's bizarre interpretation is fascinating and a window onto whatever festering sore remains of his soul. Or it's just the desperate projections of an aged schoolyard bully, feebly fighting off the final forays of dementia. That isn't evil; it's just sad.

 

[joecct]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

So - universal conscription or not? Is that the question?

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

So - universal conscription or not? Is that the question?

That is the question.

My inner pragmatist says yes, it would lead to better policy outcomes if the pols had to calculate mass protest when deciding whether to throw our military dick around.

My inner civil libertarian says no, that power is too strong to be granted to the state which, as we've recently seen, is so readily hijacked by the grifter or the criminally insane.

So my answer is no, but a bracing public debate would sure be healthy and would expose a lot of the hypocrisy of our ruling class.

 

[Jimjamesak]

There are about 42 million people in their 20's in the U.S. right now. I think the casualty figures for Iraq/Afghanistan are probably somewhere in the 5000-6000 range. If the wounded figures follow historical averages, they're probably 3x or 4x the number of dead. Obviously tragic for those involved, but I'm pretty sure your "generation" is going to survive the carnage.

Actually the age range you want to look at is 26-27 to about 35-36, that's the best age range of those who served in Afghanistan and Iraq. And way to completely wash over things like PTSD, like a good politician!

And say what you will about the British nobility but at least their sons seem to head to war zones, even Prince Andrew and Prince Harry have served in wars. Sons of Congress seem to not.

 

[Rover]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

Hardly rests? Bush lied. It's the most impeachable offense ever perpetrated by a sitting President to lie to go to War and yet he skated through. Just goes to show that War is easy for the country while sex is not.

Gotta push back on this too. The idea that Dems are as much to blame as Republicans for Iraq is like saying Madoff's victims are as much to blame as he is for his fraud. Its absurd. Dems, like the American people, were lied to about Saddam's possession of WMD and possibly nukes. No sh !t they voted to go to war because of the imminent danger. They weren't the ones doing the lying and anybody who thinks they share equal blame has their head so far up their @ ss they need a crowbar to free it.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

The Dems are culpable to the extent that they personally opposed the war but were afraid to be labeled Jeannette Rankin (a label which, BTW, anyone should be honored to have -- talk about the courage of one's convictions. It's no wonder the people who are impressed when an actor fakes courage are the very people who despise it when they see the real thing.)

{I'll say this for the GOP -- they would never be bullied into voting against their (juvenile, simplistic, ethically questionable) principles. It even took the Dems to save Dubya's bacon on TARP.}

Dems like Hillary understood that PNAC always had the Iraq war on the drawing board and were just waiting for any pretext, but she didn't have the courage to vote no and deal with the "these colors don't run" herpa-derpism. Plenty of her Dem colleagues share the same guilt.

The GOP was Sandusky, but the Dems were Paterno.

 

[FadeToBlack&Gold]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

Hardly rests? Bush lied. It's the most impeachable offense ever perpetrated by a sitting President to lie to go to War and yet he skated through. Just goes to show that War is easy for the country while sex is not.

The Bush administration beat the war drums, and a majority of spineless Democrats ate it up without much, if any, hesitation because they didn't want to appear 'weak' or 'anti-Murica' to constituents in swing states beating their chests to "Courtesy of the Red, White, and Blue" during the 2-3 year period of mass blood lust that swept the country following 9/11. Yes, they are equally culpable.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

The Bush administration beat the war drums, and a majority of spineless Democrats ate it up without much, if any, hesitation because they didn't want to appear 'weak' or 'anti-Murica' to constituents in swing states beating their chests to "Courtesy of the Red, White, and Blue" during the 2-3 year period of mass blood lust that swept the country following 9/11. Yes, they are equally culpable.

No, they are not equally culpable. Your moral equivalency argument does not fly with me. The man in the Oval Office knew and didn't care and that's all I need to know.

 

[FadeToBlack&Gold]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

No, they are not equally culpable. Your moral equivalency argument does not fly with me. The man in the Oval Office knew and didn't care and that's all I need to know.

Hey, if it helps you sleep at night...

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

Hey, if it helps you sleep at night...

There is nothing in existence today that helps me sleep at night.

 

[Rover]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

The Dems are culpable to the extent that they personally opposed the war but were afraid to be labeled Jeannette Rankin (a label which, BTW, anyone should be honored to have -- talk about the courage of one's convictions. It's no wonder the people who are impressed when an actor fakes courage are the very people who despise it when they see the real thing.)

{I'll say this for the GOP -- they would never be bullied into voting against their (juvenile, simplistic, ethically questionable) principles. It even took the Dems to save Dubya's bacon on TARP.}

Dems like Hillary understood that PNAC always had the Iraq war on the drawing board and were just waiting for any pretext, but she didn't have the courage to vote no and deal with the "these colors don't run" herpa-derpism. Plenty of her Dem colleagues share the same guilt.

The GOP was Sandusky, but the Dems were Paterno.

The Bush administration beat the war drums, and a majority of spineless Democrats ate it up without much, if any, hesitation because they didn't want to appear 'weak' or 'anti-Murica' to constituents in swing states beating their chests to "Courtesy of the Red, White, and Blue" during the 2-3 year period of mass blood lust that swept the country following 9/11. Yes, they are equally culpable.

Again, this line of reasoning makes zero sense, and its dangerous for the country. Giving one party cover with the trite "oh they both do it" allows the offending party to do the same thing again, with the knowledge they won't be held accountable. I didn't think anybody watched CNN anymore, but several posters out here seem to be brainwashed by their relentless false equivalency.

Perhaps Bernie Madoff's victims could have watched their investments better or questioned the returns. However, no sane person would say they deserved what they got and are equally to blame in the fraud. Likewise, no sane person who isn't a GOP party hack would say that Dems deserve blame for the faked intelligence reports of the Bush admin. That's ridiculous.