Young Republicans support Iraq war, but not all are willing to join the fight

Point taken, old man.

 

I think this sticking point is one that hurt the Democrats because war is sometimes necessary. In the age of soundbites, the nuance concerning the Iraq war will be replaced with any war. If a party won't fight in any war because of lack of support, then that party is seen as a poor defender.

Bush did a masterful job maintaining a link with 9/11 and Iraq. People wanted to feel safe, so America engaged in another war. Then it's not surprising how Kerry lost on his Iraq platform or the lack of a huge controversy over the Downing Street Memos.

In all likelyhood, the politicians who support the war but don't risk getting their young careers cut short on the battlefield will be come the Hawks of the next political generation. We'll probably see similar news articles like this one of any party 20 years from now.

 

[off topic]

Fine I was being a little overzealous in making my point with some features provided in this BBS, but I didn't know you as such a strong advocate-for-plain-typeface had to use bold face sentence and CAPITALIZED words in your own post, for instance, #34 in this thread.

Don't you think you are [size=-2]a little[/size] hypocritical?

[/off topic]

 

Give me a break! That is a terrible analogy.

These Young Repubs have an option to sit back and enjoy a carefree life in America or go fight for the freedom of Iraqi citizens. Its a no brainer...really. If they chose NOT to participate it is because their life is pretty rosey now and how would going to war help their current personal situation?

Blacks didn't get that option...by default they were all personally invested in the civil rights movement. Of course blacks were highly interested in the outcome as it affected their daily lives. They lived it. If they chose NOT to participate it was out of fear of being assulted or murdered or the family assulted and murdered. The Young Repubs have no idea what is happening in Iraq...unlike the blacks during civil rights.

If you aren't willing to die or send your son/daughter to die, then you need to rethink your support for war. War is a last resort! I think mandetory military service in this country (not a draft, always mandetory even during peace time) would change people's attitudes. It's easy to support something when you have no skin in the game. I bet many of these Young Repubs would have a different position if they knew they HAD to enlist.

Edit:
btw, Blacks were not at war. Marching and protesting is waayy different. Blacks didn't have tanks, guns, planes, chain of command, intelligence, etc. They just didn't want to get slaughtered while going to school/work. Many were willing to die in an honest fight such as Malcome X. But these fights weren't honest.

The American Revolution against the Brits or the Civil War...now those were wars...where people willingly signed up to protect our land.

 

People in the military have chosen a lifestyle that may involve fighting. They know this when they enter the military. They are doing a job. It doesn't matter what the mission is. That is their discipline-- not their passion.

 

I didn't critisize your bold print. It was your excessive use of large print. Kind of sad (childish, actually) that you would actually search through old posts to try and defend yourself if you feel you don't need defending - and then go out of your way to post your defense. Whatever. I tell you what: You ignore me and I'll ignore you from now on, okay?

 

Seriously, I don't have a problem. Why should I? It's not my website. Some of you guys take this forum a little bit too seriously at times so I was just yanking your chain.

I get that you're against the war, man, I really do. And believe it or not, I respect it.

Just answer me this. Without the 'chicken hawk/warmonger' accusations. Without the anti-war rhetoric. Just answer yes or no. Do you think it's possible to support a cause that you're not directly involved in?

 

I have one issue to settle with you before I let you go. Now if you can go back to that post I researched and read it again. I knew you were trying to defend capitalism, which is fine, and you actually made many good points. However, there was something seriously flawed. It was pretty obvious - I thought others would recognize it outright - so I didn't make an effort to point it out right away. Instead, I directed my response to MadMax's inquiry. I didn't understand (and I still don't) why you quoted my post and asked a bizare question about my age, in a seemingly innocent manner, which I took it in good faith.

 

When I read this I thought about a T-Shirt I saw at an army surplus store about 20 years ago. It said.

"VIETNAM. BRAVE SOLDIERS GUTLESS POLITICIANS."

 

I believe its a moral imperative to help people recover from the tsunami and last winter took time off to go to Thailand on my own dime to help out and am considering going to Sri Lanka in the next few months to help out there.

 

Do you consider a little fun-loving Bush bashing something serious?

And I appreciate your understanding. One thing though, I am not a blind pacifist against any war.

I now realize the demeaning nature of these two terms can't be inducive to civil discussion of serious matters. Will try to watch out myself. As to your question, I really need to think about it hard before I can give you an honest answer.

 

Sorry, not good enough. You're not making a sufficiently radical sacrifice and your life will not be in danger. Nice vacations though!

 

This is a terrible analogy. Not even remotely close. You have a group of people who support a war, which includes sending others to die become mentally drained, and kill any kind of home or family life. But are unwilling to fight this SAME cause they want others to fight for them. None of your analogies suggest sending someone else to die on the level of a war.



MUCH less a stupid ass war based on lies, misinformation, and the gaul of one man and his coward administration.

Kinda fits doesnt it. Their leader ran from a fight, checked that box 'dont send me overseas' same as these crack addicts.

 

Cool, man. Thanks for your honest and civil response. People are a lot more likely to try and understand a different point of view when you can discuss it like adults without the typical rhetoric, name calling and accusations. Obviously that goes for both sides.

Oh well. I guess some people are capable and some aren't...

 

Amazing! That's great Sishir Chang.

 

Sishir Chang that is impressive and admirable! here is to your sir, cheers!

 

I suppose if you consider visiting a disaster area a vacation.

 

"I just want you all to know, that when the @#$% hits the fan out there, I'll be right behind you every step of the way."

 

Whatever you want to do I think it is great. I'm only poking fun at you the way the thread-starters here are poking fun at young Republicans who don't deposit themselves on the front lines in Iraq.

I do feel compelled to ask: why do you support this disaster to the extent that you do above all others? You called it a moral imperative; I take it that that would apply to everyone?

 

That's a fair question to ask and I personally would encourage others to help out as they could thus my sig.

Its primarily a moral imperative to me because I've been to that region many times, am Asian myself, believe in helping people recover from disasters because I've had some experiences with disasters myself and also because I believe as an American that our help in that region will pay off in the long run by improving peoples, particularly Muslims, opinions of us so they're less likely to try to kill us or support those who want to kill us.

To elaborate on this, when I was in Malaysia in late 2003 the amount of hate directed at America was greater than it had ever been. I love my country but told people I was Canadian out of fear of getting spat at or worse. That actually paid off as a few Malaysians I talked to told me how much they hated Americans and they were glad I wasn't one. In some places people even spoke of Bin Ladin with understanding. They said while it was evil that he killed all those people he was only doing it to defend Islam from America's attacks. This was in freakin Malaysia, one of the most progressive Islamic countries with a very high degree of education and good standard of living. Not some economic basketcase where most people get educated in fundamentalists backwardass madrassas like Pakistan.

When I went to Southeast Asia in 2005 much of that attitude was gone and many people were thankful for American aid and appreciated that we were there to help. Even in Indonesia where I had been told last time I was in that region that it wasn't safe for Americans to goto.

Its both the morally right thing to do to help the tsunami victims but also the politically right thing to do. A few billion in tsunami aid will buy us something that hundreds of billions spent fighting in Iraq will never do. The goodwill of potential enemies.