What's keeping a staunch supporter from enlisting for the war?

[Zardoz]

...~1.1% of the Congress members have children enlisted...

Exactly. When these people make their decisions, 99% of them are voting on the fate of other people's children, not their own.

 

[FoolKiller]

Who didnt want to be a soldier when they were young. Its called gender socialisation and if you had a strong gender socialisation your more likely to want to be say a fireman policeman soldier racedriver spaceman or somekind of tradesman. These were described as true respectable mens jobs back in the day. Just talk to your grand parents if you dont belive me.

The peopel I am talking about didn't stop and then they joined because they wanted to be in teh military. You make it sound like they are all just in there because they have no choice.

There are people who do want to join the army but I can tell you this if the world was more balanced out in whom has the power there would be more wars with alot more casualties and alot less people actively wanting to be a soldier during peace time.

But it isn't, so this makes no sense with the current topic. The topic is referring to the real world where the planet doesn't practice military socialism.

Exactly. When these people make their decisions, 99% of them are voting on the fate of other people's children, not their own.

People who elected them with the knowledge that they may have to make that decision. It does appear that relative to the population Congress has twice the ratio of children in the military as the rest of the country.

So, should we only allow people into Congress if they have children in the military? The decision of war will come up again, so does that mean that 99% of Congress is unfit to make any decision regarding this vote? Or should they have to vote based on whether their children are serving?

So does that mean Congressmen who served but their children didn't are unfit to make this decision despite seeing war first hand?

I could go on like this forever, but I will get to my point. You are being asinine, as is this thread topic.

 

[ledhed]

This thread can bite me .

 

[Kylehnat]

People who elected [Congressmen/Congresswomen] with the knowledge that they may have to make that decision. It does appear that relative to the population Congress has twice the ratio of children in the military as the rest of the country.

True, we vote for these people, but when push comes to shove, we have no idea how they will vote in any given situation. Plus, senators serve for 6 years, so theoretically when the war was voted on in 2002/2003, some of these people were voted/revoted into office in as early as 1996/1997. Who on earth knew then that we would be going to war in Iraq under false pretenses? At that point, these senators could have said "I'll vote for any war in the interest of the US" and voters would have said "okay, but that probably won't happen" in addition to not really knowing what "in the interest of the US" might entail.

It's true that we vote for the people who have all the power, but once the vote is done, we are powerless as a population, which I think has made countless people angry over the last few years.

 

[Danoff]

True, we vote for these people, but when push comes to shove, we have no idea how they will vote in any given situation.

Most likely they'll vote along the lines of their constituents... otherwise they're risking getting booted out.

Who on earth knew then that we would be going to war in Iraq under false pretenses?

We didn't.

It's true that we vote for the people who have all the power, but once the vote is done, we are powerless as a population, which I think has made countless people angry over the last few years.

This misunderstands the government structure of the US.

 

[Zardoz]

...I could go on like this forever, but I will get to my point. You are being asinine, as is this thread topic.

If Sadaam Hussein had been required to personally put on a helmet and be the point man for his ground troops, would he have attacked Iran in 1980?

If Adolf Hitler had been required to carry a rifle and march in shoulder-to-shoulder with his infantry, would he have invaded Russia?

If Leonid Brezhnev had been required to personally face the Moujahadeen in ground combat, would he have ordered that catastrophic Russian invasion of Afghanistan?

Would Ho Chi Minh have been so enthusiastic about trying to conquer South Vietnam if he had been required to don the black pajamas and slog through the jungle himself toting an AK-47?

"I could go on like this forever", couldn't I?

"Asinine"? Hardly. Its the whole point. Its the recent history of the world in a few words: Old men start wars, young men fight them.

Do you really believe the path of history would be the same if those rich old non-combatants who "lead" us into the horrors of war actually had to participate?

Do you really think we would be stuck in Iraq now if Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and Rice had been required to go through boot camp, put on the uniform, and lead the Third Infantry Division into Baghdad? Do you think they would have been so determined to stifle dissenting opinions about their plans if their own personal butts had been on the line?

 

[FoolKiller]

Really, was editing my quote necessary? Besides Women is derived from Men, thus use women is to demean women in saying that they are derived from men and not equal. And Danoff started a gender neutral pronoun thread to discuss just this issue.

True, we vote for these people, but when push comes to shove, we have no idea how they will vote in any given situation. Plus, senators serve for 6 years, so theoretically when the war was voted on in 2002/2003, some of these people were voted/revoted into office in as early as 1996/1997. Who on earth knew then that we would be going to war in Iraq under false pretenses? At that point, these senators could have said "I'll vote for any war in the interest of the US" and voters would have said "okay, but that probably won't happen" in addition to not really knowing what "in the interest of the US" might entail.

It's true that we vote for the people who have all the power, but once the vote is done, we are powerless as a population, which I think has made countless people angry over the last few years.

So, what would you suggest to correct this? Have teh American people vote or just the families of the enlisted? War affects everyone on many levels beyond just family overseas. It can affect foreign policy, how the world views us, and even trade. While I am not trying to diminish the effects on the families of those overseas I am trying to point out that the rest of us are affect in other ways also and so we all have a stake in our country going to war, which means that all of our representatives in Congress have the right to speak for all of us depsite their family's enlisted member status.

This thread is so off topic now.

 

[Kylehnat]

Most likely they'll vote along the lines of their constituents... otherwise they're risking getting booted out.

Which is why a lot of congressmen are starting to change their opinions and views; a lot are up for re-election next year.

 

[Kent]

I'm closing this thread.

It has become a passionate flame war between people who will never see eye to eye.

Much of what has been said here has deeper implications than some could realize and the anger levels may quickly rise to levels of GTP moderation.

Thread Closed.

Complain in the gtp feedback moderator action thread.
Do a search if you must.