Poll: If the Draft is Reinstituted....

No, a lot closer to George Washington.

 

Peroutka claims that George Washington acted illegally in suppressing the Whiskey Rebellion without Congressional approval.

 

Do you have a link to Peroutka claiming this, or is this just another of your false statements in attempt to smear the only conservative Christian candidate who will be on the ballot?

 

No, a lot closer to George Washington. </font>[/QUOTE]Actually Neville Chamberlain. He couldn't recognize the threat Hitler was to England and the rest of the world. After WW1 Germany had sanctions on it too that Hitler thought he could and did ignore. Chamberlain just looked the other way. Looking the other way was a big mistake then and would be even bigger now.

 

When is the last time you actually looked at the points of our argument rather than deciding to play the martyr card and take everything personally?

I'm not happy about the loss of American troops either, but I look at it realistically. It's a war, Jim. There are over one hundred fifty THOUSAND troops in the theater of operations, right? We've lost less than one percent of them, mostly to guerilla and terrorist tactics. These kinds of tactics are aimed more at causing shock, horror, and a weakening of resolve than they are at actually affecting the enemy. Those who parrot the whole "wrong war, wrong place, wrong time" line are simply reacting as these guerillas/terrorists want them to.

That is my argument, and I'm calling them like I sees them, Jim. If you cannot construct an argument better than calling me names that must be snipped (which is, for the record, the definition of "personal attack") or shrilling "how dare you," then you need to quit trying.

From mod: your post to him was also snipped, as was this one since his name is Jim, not Jimbo.
I see you read and acknowledged as requested btw, I do appreciate that. Please help keep it a reality.

[ October 20, 2004, 12:33 PM: Message edited by: Gina L ]

 

Gina, it's better than what was there first. Thanks.

 

I know that anti war protesters do nothing to help their fellow citizens sent to fight a war. I know many of them mean well and sincerely believe in their cause. Unfortunately, their efforts do help the cause of the enemy. I know it upsets them to be told this and, sometimes, those feelings can become very intense.

There are, of course, varying degrees of it and every one who disagrees with a war in progress is not equivalent to Jane Fonda of the Viet Nam war. Arguments can certainly be made about whether or not we, as a nation, should or should not engage in any particular war. But once engaged that's not relevant to those doing the fighting.

Our troops need to know that their fellow citizens are behind the cause they've been sent and want them to give it their very best even their lives if required. Casting doubt in their minds does not give them support but weakens their resolve. As I solider I didn't appreciate those that discredited what I and many others were sent to do because it discredited us. It really hurt morale a lot more than many people understand. As an old veteran I dislike even more and see that it is happening again to another generation. Now is the time to support the cause and those engaged in it.

I don't like to upset other people but I the truth can not be avoided. I certainly mean no personal disrespect by it. The other point of view receives a great deal of attention in our news media, and even on this Baptist Board, and so sometimes others will have to endure what they do not like to be told just as I must very often.

Patrick

 

No, a lot closer to George Washington. </font>[/QUOTE]Actually Neville Chamberlain. He couldn't recognize the threat Hitler was to England and the rest of the world. After WW1 Germany had sanctions on it too that Hitler thought he could and did ignore. Chamberlain just looked the other way. Looking the other way was a big mistake then and would be even bigger now. </font>[/QUOTE]If you think that Hussein's military power compared to Germany in the '30's you had better take a remedial history course.

 

My brother died as a result of Agent Orange in Viet Nam. It hurts, my friend, still. I only brought it up because you implied that I hold a position that intentionally hurts troops.

I've felt the results of war, and it brings me to be rather defensive of our milirary people.

You call my hurt and sorrow "playing a martyr". I wonder why the moderators snip a few angry words, yet allow this sort of gross unkindness to stand.

I'm ok, but if your heart is that hard, I feel sorry for you.

By the way, I have addressed the points of our argument, but you responded with snotty, childish, hurtful remarks. Grow up.

 

Many men paid a price in Viet Nam and later because of it. Some are still living with their problems, others have passed on, and some made it without too much harm. This has always been the case in war. A lot of misery comes from it from those in it and around it for at least a few generations. It's a bad deal. It's yet another result of the sinfulness of man.

It touches me when I hear of another persons grief and I feel for them even if I do not agree with their political views. My family, like a lot of others, has had its share of personal suffering from the Viet Nam war as well and from World War II before that. When it's personal certainly does hurt and it can mold ones opinions about a lot things. It can lead to withdrawal, to hatred, to bitterness, to short tempers, to revenge, or a host of other emotions. Anyone touched by war can not help but be effected by it in some way.

We can all look forward to the day that there will be no more war and no reason for a military. We will not see that day on this earth in this life. Only when the Lord comes again will we see it.

I stand firm by my belief that war is a necessary fact of mankind's existence on this earth and. further, there are just wars fought because of just causes by nations that fear and follow God and have the will and the means in the world to serve as defenders of justice. As a nation we have the dreadful responsibility of taking up the sword for justice from time to time. America has done that consistently throughout its history and has been on the right side of every major conflict in which it has engaged and that includes Viet Nam.

I don't believe we have a dog in every fight around the world and, sometimes, I wish we didn't get involved. In today's world we'd better pay attention and take up the fight there rather than here. We do have to pick and choose but once the choice is made we're committed and then it's time to do - not talk. Helping others is a generous by product of defending our own liberty. I have mixed feelings about that from time to time because I think others must want their own freedom bad enough to take it. Yet, at the same time, I find it honorable that we are so generous to use our might for the benefit of others as well. There must be limits to that and we should not be the world's rapid reaction force for every conflict.

The war we're fighting now in Iraq is a just war and those fighting it need to know that it is and that this nation is behind their cause as well as them. There were disagreements over the justification for getting into this fight. Our system has evolved to give our President considerable power in making the decisions. That's good because we act quickly and decisively. That's bad because we act quickly and decisively. How do we fix that? That's worth talking about and doing something about for the future. Somehow I can't imagine the 535 people in Congress ever acting quickly and decisively enough to defend our nation but, then again, there sure was a lot of support when we started and the banners were waving all around. At any rate, there's no such thing as supporting a person in what they're doing and, at the same time, not supporting what they're doing. The doing is the hard part.

We are doing good things in Iraq that hopefully will lead to the establishment of a solid democracy in that part of the world which will benefit those that live there and us as well. It's a noble cause. The final result may or may not be successful. In the end it must be accomplished by the people of Iraq because they want to, have the courage to, and have the strength to overcome their enemies within. We've already won the war of army against army. We're not there to provide a long term occupation. We don't have enough troops in our whole military to accomplish that even if it were the right thing which it's not. Our job is to help Iraq get on its feet. That's very difficult because there are and will be terrorists still at work for a long time.

Terrorist like easy targets that get a lot of attention and put fear and doubt into people's minds and hearts. They like to make people believe the cause is hopeless. They like it when people begin to question why we're fighting them. They like it when we turn on one another and our leaders. They like it because they know that's the way they can win. We can't permit that to happen and we don't have to either.

You tell a young soldier to go fight because it's the right thing to do for the nation and they'll likely give it their best and their all if necessary. You tell them to go fight but that they're in the wrong war, wrong place, and wrong time and they're just not going to be that committed to the cause. They'll still fight to save themselves and their peers which is a big motivation for soldiers in combat! But they'll come home mad about it, they'll resent it, they'll develop problems for, and, sooner or later, you'll see that morale is not what it should be. When morale isn't what it should be combat effectiveness isn't either.

Patrick

 

"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." George Orwell

Lesson? Don't draft "girly men" and "whiners"

 

Patrick,

Thanks for a thoughtful and reasonable response.

I agree that war is at times necessary. I think our response to 9/11 was delayed too long, and not violent enough. There should have been missiles in the air within 24 hours...but at terrorists, not Iraq. I think assasinations were probably in order, in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. Nuclear, if it would have helped. Some of the work in Afghanistan was good, even if too little too late.

During the Viet Nam war, most American boys went willingly (or at least obediently) to fight for their country. I was proud of my brother, who was considerably older than me. I used to carry his picrure, in his USMC full-dress officers' uniform, in my school lunch box. I would show it to my friends whenever I found an excuse to do so. They thought it was pretty cool, too.

I can remember the days (thirteen months, actually) when my mother would look out the front window every time she passed it in mid-day, to see if the mail man had come. A letter was a welcome connection, and evidence that my brother was still alive. I remember with happiness when he came home safely, so we thought. He took me to Hershey Park, just the two of us, for a day. But, the elements were in his body that would claim his life, after marriage and three children.

While in Viet Nam, he had been in some of the toughest campaigns and action. He tried to relate some of the stories to me one time, but would break down weeping. Otherwise, he was sound and well-adjusted, not one of the unfortunate ones who had mental problems.

I say all of that to say this:

He served proudly, and fought hard. I was, and still am, proud of him and his service, and the service of many thousands of others, dead and alive.

BUT...

Although his service was, for him, in defense of his country, it was a wasted war. It accomplished nothing of benefit for the US. The Communists took over when we left; we were defeated because we were in a war that was not worth what it took to win.

It was a war fought fought for the egos and benefits of dirtballs like McNamara, and the profits and schemes of his buddies. There is nothing more despicable.

The ones who I scorned at the time, the "draft dodgers", perhaps showed more wisdom than we could see at the time. They are still alive, and would have accomplished nothing by "serving". Because they would not have been, untimately, serving the American people; they would have been, sadly, serving the "insider" politicians who think war is a fine way to advance a personal agenda.

War is a horrible thing, and should be done aggressively, with full force, as a last resort in defense of the ground upon which we walk.

 

Pa. Jim,

While I appreciate much of your last post, I must disagree with your statement taht the Viet Nam war was not worth what it took to win.

The war could have been won had the politicians allowed the military to fight the war and take the battle to the enemy. Both Johnson and Nixon played with too many men's lives in their misguided approach.

I also disagree with the last phrase in your last statement - "as a last resort in defense of the ground upon which we walk."

You don't allow the enemy to fight the battle on the field of his choice - you take the fight to him on his ground where he has to worry about protecting his assets, his people as well as waging war.

 

I agree. We have, fortunately, that military capability to fight an attacker on their soil, not ours. We should mind our own business, and if someone attacks us, turn their country into molten glass, people and all. It would only happen once.

 

Then we should have deployed a nuclear bomb on Sept. 12th?

 

The military could have won in Vietnam in a matter of days. We did not have the political will to do so. Political gain was the order of the day just as it is now. The troops in the field will always pay the price for not having the political will.

Why don't we have that political will? There are probably several reasons but surely open opposition and infighting amoung ourselves is one of them. Not only does it sapp our political will but it strengthens the resolve of our enemies. Apparently we learned nothing from Vietnam. It may be our fate to repeat it. It will be our own fault.

 

If:

1) We knew who did it.
2) We knwy where they were.
3) There was no better way.

I think 1 and 2 very possibly were the case. I think 3 would not have been necessary...a few thousand pounds of modern explosives can do wonderful things to a terrorist.

 

If:

1) We knew who did it.
2) We knwy where they were.
3) There was no better way.

I think 1 and 2 very possibly were the case. I think 3 would not have been necessary...a few thousand pounds of modern explosives can do wonderful things to a terrorist. </font>[/QUOTE]Not nearly that simple. I wish it was.

 

Well, I admit it would have been a lot simpler that ripping apart an entire country that had little or nothing to do with the attack.