Sure they do. And they also trust they won’t be used as cannon fodder for no good purpose.

An analogy: You go to a restaurant. Your server is a paid volunteer who will attend to your dining needs and wants. Does that give you license to spill your drinks or dump your food on the floor?

Jadegold…I admire your conviction. But the answer, is no. That is why we have a volunteer, paid, professional military. The volunteers who join the military understand the risks.

Now, where it gets interesting is if we stretch ourselves too thin, and President Bush, or President Hillary Clinton, or McCain, ends up reinstating the draft. This is not pie in the sky….this could *really* happen, simply out of dire necessity.

I wonder how people on the right will feel if we start sending thousands of young men and women too Iraq who DID NOT choose to join the military? When *their* sons and daughters stand a chance of being the ones in harms way. What will happen then?

JK

Hey, weren t the left supposed to be having big parties about hitting 2000? Where are these loud celebrations taking place?

Here’s one

Here are some interesting comments about Iraq and Kuwait, none of which suggest that Glaspie was acting alone:

>Edward Mortimer wrote in the New York Review of Books in November 1990: “It seems far more likely that Saddam Hussein went ahead with the invasion because he believed the US would not react with anything more than verbal condemnation. That was an inference he could well have drawn from his meeting with US Ambassador April Glaspie on July 25, and from statements by State Department officials in Washington at the same time publicly disavowing any US security commitments to Kuwait, but also from the success of both the Reagan and the Bush administrations in heading off attempts by the US Senate to impose sanctions on Iraq for previous breaches of international law.”

Kenneth Pollack of the Brookings Institution, writing in the New York Times on September 21, 2003, disagrees with this analysis: “In fact, all the evidence indicates the opposite: Saddam Hussein believed it was highly likely that the United States would try to liberate Kuwait, but convinced himself that we would send only lightly armed, rapidly deployable forces that would be quickly destroyed by his 120,000-man Republican Guard. After this, he assumed, Washington would acquiesce to his conquest.” Consistent with this line of thought, Tariq Aziz claimed in a 1996 PBS interview that Iraq “had no illusions” prior to the invasion of Kuwait about the likelihood of U.S. military intervention.

James Akins, the American Saudi Ambassador at the time, offered a slightly different perspective, in a 2000 PBS interview: “[Glaspie] took the straight American line, which is we do not take positions on border disputes between friendly countries. That’s standard. That’s what you always say. You would not have said, “Mr. President, if you really are considering invading Kuwait, by God, we’ll bring down the wrath of God on your palaces, and on your country, and you’ll all be destroyed.” She wouldn’t say that, nor would I. Neither would any diplomat.”

In April 1991 Glaspie testified before the Foreign Relations Committee of the United States Senate. She said that at the July 25 meeting she had “repeatedly warned Iraqi President Saddam Hussein against using force to settle his dispute with Kuwait.” She also said that Saddam had lied to her by denying he would invade Kuwait. Asked to explain how Saddam could have interpreted her comments as implying U.S. approval for the invasion of Kuwait, she replied: “We foolishly did not realize he [Saddam] was stupid.”

Those pesky facts!

Leo — are you talking about JadeGold the Putz?

Sure–April Glaspie, anyone?

And before anyone suggests Glaspie was acting alone or something–remember, we had all kinds of intel (satellite imagery, etc) showing Iraq was massing its military on the border.

Again, the chickenhawks believe that because someone has elected to join the military, their lives become subject to the whims and fantasies of the chickenhawk. Wrong. In return for becoming an instrument of our nation’s national security, there exists a compact between the soldier and society wherein the soldier will not be used as a political tool or an instrument of corporate interests.

That’s what happened in Iraq.

Chickenhawks have no concept of sacrifice. As I’ve noted, joining the military doesn’t guarantee you’ll see combat; in fact, the odds are you won’t. But the sacrifice remains–you’ll likely be separated from family, your career (if unlike Frankie, you have one) will be on hold or delayed, you may incur financial setbacks. All of these are reasons the chickenhawks bang their keyboards instead of heading to the recruiters’ office.

And, of course, there is the risk the chickenhawk will be placed in harm’s way. There is a risk of death or serious injury. Yet, as chickenhawks demand others pay the ultimate price–the chickenhawk cannot even muster the courage to campaign for better VA funding, for better veteran benefits, etc. Why? Because chickenhawks could care less about the troops–this is merely a game to them. They could care less about Iraq–what matters is protecting their political masters.

Are you freaking kidding me ?

Student’s deployment brings home Iraq war to Bowdoin College campus :

While Cornell du Houx has actively rallied against many of President Bush’s policies, he feels that his involvement in the Marines is not a conflict of interest.

“Regardless of my opinions regarding the war in Iraq, it is my duty as a U.S. Marine to serve and I am ready and willing to do my job to its fullest extent,” he said.

Others on campus, particularly his political opponents in the Bowdoin College Republicans, feel differently about his service. Daniel Schuberth, a leader of the Bowdoin College Republicans and College Republican national secretary, said, “I applaud Mr. Houx for his service, just as I applaud any other soldier who is brave enough to take up arms in defense of his country. I find it troubling, however, that one of the most vocal opponents of our president, our country and our mission in Iraq has chosen to fight for a cause he claims is wrong. Mr. Houx’s rhetoric against the war on terror places him in agreement with the most radical fringes of the Democratic Party, and I am left to question his logic and motivation.”

Duty, honor, country
Paul Franco, one of Cornell du Houx’s government and legal studies professors, disagrees.

“He exemplifies democratic citizenship at its best,” Franco said of Cornell du Houx. “Though he opposes Bush’s war policies, he still feels obligated to fulfill his duty. … This is the exact opposite of what is done by those supporters of the war who would never dream of fighting in it themselves or sending their own children to fight in it.”

At least this time, you didn’t blame your inability to prove a point on my “family problems”. You did, of course, feel it relevant to try to make getting an education the equivalent of “not having a career” — a sure sign of ignorance, if ever I saw one. Actually, I’m on my way to my third career, Putz, how many careers have you had?

If you’re opposed to the war, have the guts to refuse to fight in it. If you’re going to be good Marine, then don’t demoralize your fellow Marines by railing against the war.

Prof Franco, on the other hand, who (like JG the P) thinks he speaks for people who support the war, when he says they would “never dream of … sending their own children to fight in [the war]”

I can almost understand the “clever by half” JadeGold the Putz buying into that crap, but a College Professor? He’s obviously got tenure, but then again… Who knows?

It is, indeed, a stupid argument. There is absolutely, positively, NO moral obligation, or requirement for any person to place him / her self in harm’s way, before you place others in harm’s way — it is a fiction. It’s a liberal twist on, “Oh, yeah? Where were you in the war, buddy?”

It didn’t rear it’s stupid ugly head, until Clinton’s “War Room” came up with it as a way to deflect the flack he was getting for his draft – dodger letter.

“Chickenhawks” don’t need to learn the meaning of sacrifice from the likes of you and the Kos / DU crowd, many of whom never wore a uniform . Remember, you are wrong when you say they demand sacrifice of others, for two reasons:

1) They, the alleged “chickenhawks” don’t demand sacrifice of anyone. You might say that if all the men in Iraq joined up before the war began, and then found themselves shipping out to the Sandbox. You might say that, if wounded soldiers didn’t heal up and head right back to be with their buddies. You might say that, if re -enlistments were predicated on a guaranteed return to the states, when, in fact, many times, the opposite is true.

2) There is no “demand”: a man or woman can join up to be whatever their test scores say they can be. There is no demand by the powers that be that a man or woman go here or go there. Men and women in the Armed Services have all kinds of options. When I was in the service — about thirty years ago, we were told the number of support personnel in a war zone (like, say, Viet nam) was about 7 or 8 support personnel to one combat soldier.

My guess is that the number of support personnel for each combat soldier has probably gone up. There are, I mean to say, a lot of non – dangerous places to be in the military.

The argument is bogus for several other reasons, which you have no doubt heard. I thought these two were rarely heard — especially because I thought them up myself, just now.

Nobody is demanding chickenhawks shut up. They’re perfectly free to bloviate on any subject they wish. What they can’t demand is that we give it any credence.

As you correctly note, they are defending a lie. Are we to give this defense of a lie credence when these defenders refuse to have the courage of their proclaimed convictions? Really, this is the moral test; if you’re willing to expose others to harm’s way–shouldn’t you be prepared to place yourself in harm’s way?

Where you err badly, JK, is forgetting that these defenders of a lie are not merely seeking to have their pro-war views heard–they are also the same folks branding anyone who doesn’t support the war as ‘anti-American’ or ‘pro-terrorist.’

Nobody’s demanding the chickenhawks be sent to the frontlines of Falluja; chances are better than good that someone who enlists will wind up repairing APCs at Fort Leonard Wood or inventorying rotor blades in Atsugi rather than see a day of combat. The issue here is that chickenhawks learn the concept of sacrifice–the same sacrifice they demand of others.

This liberal is growing extremely weary of the “join the military or shut up” talk. Or the “Bush daughter’s” mantra. For a time, it was seen as a clever device to stir up the pot. Now it’s becoming part of the regular mantra, on the left.

We have a volunteer army. They are there to preserve, protect, and defend the United States from all enemies, foreign or domestic (if I recall my oath properly from many, many years ago). They follow the orders of their superiors, and strictly observe the chain of command, up to the Commander in Chief. As a soldier, that is one of your primary responsibilities.

Jay has NO MORE moral obligation to join the Army than anyone else, if he supports the war. So lay off him, and the silly argument.

People, we live in a democracy, remember? Freedom of speech, 1st Ammendment, and all that? Have some of you lost your minds? Jay pays taxes, as we all do. 20% of our tax dollar goes to the Department of Defense. Why? To fund a military that protects us from all enemies, foreign or domestic. To protect Jay’s Constitutional right to free speech. To protect YOUR right to vent on this blog.

So, please do us all a favor and shut the hell up about whether or not Jenna Bush should strap on an M-16. OK? Let’s try to be a bit more intelligent about our opposition to the war, OK? Some of you sound like school children.

Those soldiers volunteered to join the service. They follow orders. That is what they do. They are extraordinarily special people who serve their country–they have earned, and deserve our respect.

In Iraq, however, I take strong exception to the idea that they are defending the United States of America from “enemies foreign.”

I said it above, and I will say it again. They’re defending a lie perpetuated by the Bush administration. 2,000 lives later, people on the right are still perpetuating the lies.

Let’s stay on topic.

JK

“Capital treason”, heh.

“Capital treason”, indeed.