Whats with all the chickenhawks who did not serve, attacking Paul as dangerous to sec

Well then you should be fine with all countries "promoting there interests" including military force.

If China decided it was in their best interest to invade Japan then i would fully expect you to applaud their actions.

 

Worst possible scenario would be nuclear war. And 2 million or 100 million in the service wouldnt matter.

 

If we had to fight a nation like China, on our shores, you would not have to draft men like me and millions and millions of others by tricks such as free education/jobs/careers/health cares. we would all gladly volunteer. just as I do now, by speaking out against this filth indebting and enslaving us. they are fighting us financialy now, and I am fighting back

 

Then you were foolish. What did you think you would be doing in the military? Meeting invaders on the beaches of North Carolina?

Give us a break....

Because, I expect those who WANTED the job of fighting for me and are TRAINED to fight for me to actually FIGHT for me when and where I say they should fight.

Then you don't believe in democratic or civilian rule.

American soldiers have no business deciding when and where they fight.

I'm an ardent nationalists.

The interests of nations aside from the U.S. and its allies mean nothing to me and I disregard them.

I'm even offended that you mention it.

America is the only nation truly vital to the rest of the world and its interests must be perpetually protected and promoted.

Nuclear war is a whole other matter.

 

Thats my point exactly, they don't decide when and where they fight. With that said why should a coward who is not willing to fight decide when and where they fight.

 

Because we're a democracy (excuse me a democratic republic).

and the basic principal of a democracy is that everyones voice is equal when it comes to voicing beliefs about public policy and everyone is equal in voting.

Who do you think should be allowed to voice an opinion that advocates U.S. military action?

and willingness to fight in a conflict is not something that defines "cowardice" by any means.

My father did not want to join the military. He would've avoided it if possible. But he was drafted in 1950 and sent to Korea where he served in heavy combat for 11 months in country.

He was in favor of the war. He did not want to go. He was forced to go. Does that make him a coward?

 

Reason is chikenjocks never want to serve, and they were breed to make others sacrifice themselvs so they (the chickenhawks) can profit and take advantage of. Makes them feel powerfull and smart.

The rich don't get rich by making sacrifices. They make others sacrifice for their cause.

 

What did you say?????

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F9SOVzMV2bc"]The George Bush You Forgot - YouTube[/ame]

 

We are a republic, which means we are a country governed by laws.

Did you receive a call when Bush was about to invade Iraq or Afghanistan or did you vote on the internet for it.

The representatives that we elect.

True, but if you are willing to send someone else on a mission that you yourself are not willing to do, then that makes you a coward.

We thank your father for his service, his country called and he answered.

No it doesn't, but if he would have gotten 4 or 5 deferrments and then voted to send someone else to war then he would be labeled a coward.

Fair enough.

 

Except the officer corps in WWII was almost entirely the upper crust of college grads

 

Why? You have never answered this question.

I see advocacy of a war as being a political matter.

Wanting to fight in a war is a career choice unrelated to said political matter.

and I never volunteered for military service.

I did send letters to President Bush urging him to invade Iraq and depose Saddam Hussein (well before 9-11 by the way).

I was also a big supporter of the first Gulf War and I was 24 when it began.

I am not a coward and I have no regrets advocating those and other conflicts.

 

Uh which question would that be.

I don't since politicians are not the ones who are fighting them.

All those folks who were drafted would disagree with you.

I did.

[qoute]I did send letters to President Bush urging him to invade Iraq and depose Saddam Hussein (well before 9-11 by the way).[/quote]

Urging him to send other folks in to harms way, but you yourself were not willing to do it.

Sorry, but I can't think of any other word that would describe it.

 

In fact, I would never want the people that decide whether the United States goes to war to be the ones expected to serve or for any of their family members to be expected to serve.

It makes things personal and impedes the ability to think of an issue dispassionately without emotion and such matters.

Matters of life and death should be decided as cold bloodedly has possible.

And we have not had a draft in a third of a century so I don't know why you bothered mentioning it.

I always thought "cowardice" was defined as having an overwhelming or excessive fear of challenge or conflict. By labeling someone not willing to serve a "coward" you are implying they fear going to war without any evidence of that fear.

Has it occurred to you that they might

1) Have other committments that are more pressing?

2) Do not consider themselves as good potential soldiers and thus an impediment in an armed conflict?

or other perfectly legitimate reasons?

 

Sorry, but thats asinine. There are many presidents and members of congress that have served.

Serving in the military used to be considered as an honorable thing.

Funny that the people who have never served and are not willing to serve are always the ones who beat the war drums the loudest.

When you have seen the atrocities of war up close and personal I believe it gives you a better understanding of the decision you are entrusted to make.

 

Which is why people with combat experience should not be the only ones deciding whether a nation goes to war or not.

Their experience personalizes things too much and encourages an emotional aversion to war to overwhelm a dispassionate and cold blooded assessment of the national interests of the United States.

 

Just about as funny that the folk who have nver served and never would squeal the loudest about avoiding war, when that war might divert goodies from their outstretched hands.

 

I served, and Ron Paul is unelectable. No different than Ross Perot really, he appeals to a fringe element and would never carry enough votes to actually win the Presidency.

 

He supports ending the wars, reasonable regulation on private businesses and unions.....allowing states to deside on legalizing drugs and abolishing the the DEA.......I'd say he would get alot of votes on both sides from those things alone...

 

He carried much more votes then McCain in 2007, before media lovefest for McCain began, designed to elect Hussein Obama (to spit in American face) and here is the absolute proof, unlike medias skanky polls:
http://www.google.com/trends?q=Ron+Paul,+John+McCain&ctab=0&geo=all&date=2007&sort=0

 

A vote for Ron Paul is a vote for Barack Obama. His supporters can follow him off the cliff, but most of America won't.

 

Well if you never served and you are against going to war that would kind of make sense wouldn't it.

 

That's a lie.

 

I joined before 9/11 and was 18. Yes I was foolish, but I have grown up and realized the difference between us invading a foreign land on propaganda and upholding the constitution.

 

And just who did you think would be invading the United States back in the late 1990s?

There was even a less direct threat to the U.S. then than there is now.

 

You are correct. Even if he was not federalized, like Dubya, they both wore a uniform.