A step toward war

[louis91766]

Every President and member of Congress who votes to commit troops into harm’s way should be required by law to have their closest eligible relative to be committed as well. It is immoral to commit the kids and treasure of another generation to be spent in some far off place under ambiguous circumstances with no end game only to find that we must leave and watch the tide of enemies refill the vacuum. When will we learn? Doesn’t seem that we ever will. Soon, we won’t have the money to blow our nose much less project power at will all over the globe.

Good idea.

 

[rlg94086]

Every President and member of Congress who votes to commit troops into harm’s way should be required by law to have their closest eligible relative to be committed as well. It is immoral to commit the kids and treasure of another generation to be spent in some far off place under ambiguous circumstances with no end game only to find that we must leave and watch the tide of enemies refill the vacuum. When will we learn? Doesn’t seem that we ever will. Soon, we won’t have the money to blow our nose much less project power at will all over the globe.

Good idea.

So, you guys are saying that an adult son/daughter of a president or member of Congress should have no personal say in whether or not they serve in the military? :ehh:

“No conscientious objection for you!” (using Soup Nazi voice)

 

[louis91766]

So, you guys are saying that an adult son/daughter of a president or member of Congress should have no personal say in whether or not they serve in the military? :ehh:

“No conscientious objection for you!” (using Soup Nazi voice)

When the draft was in effect, did people of a given age have any personal sayso in whether or not they would be drafted?

 

[rlg94086]

When the draft was in effect, did people of a given age have any personal sayso in whether or not they would be drafted?

No, but there is no draft in effect. What you are proposing is that the sons/daughters of members of Congress and the Executive branch be subject to a draft, even though none of their peers are. And, the reasoning is because their parents happen to be in Congress or the Executive branch. That seems pretty weak to me.

Why should those adults be denied individual freedom because of who their parents are? Are their any other situations where you feel this way? Should the children of felons have limited rights because their parents are felons?

 

[a_priori]

So, you guys are saying that an adult son/daughter of a president or member of Congress should have no personal say in whether or not they serve in the military? :ehh:

“No conscientious objection for you!” (using Soup Nazi voice)

It would obviously be difficult to implement for a variety of reasons. The point is that it’s easier to send people to war when you have little skin in the game personally.

 

[louis91766]

No, but there is no draft in effect. What you are proposing is that the sons/daughters of members of Congress and the Executive branch be subject to a draft, even though none of their peers are. And, the reasoning is because their parents happen to be in Congress or the Executive branch. That seems pretty weak to me.

Why should those adults be denied individual freedom because of who their parents are? Are their any other situations where you feel this way? Should the children of felons have limited rights because their parents are felons?

If people are in favor of a war, why should they send others to fight and not their own?

 

[rlg94086]

If people are in favor of a war, why should they send others to fight and not their own?

If their adult children are in the military, then they are sending their own. You have no idea whether or not their adult children are in favor of a war. Why should their adult children have to serve in the military just because their parent votes on a war the adult child may or may not support?

 

[rlg94086]

It would obviously be difficult to implement for a variety of reasons. The point is that it’s easier to send people to war when you have little skin in the game personally.

It’s not a question of implementation. It is a question of the rights of an adult whom you want to force into service because of their parents, while everyone else in the country gets to choose whether or not they serve. You are taking an immoral position IMO.

 

[louis91766]

If their adult children are in the military, then they are sending their own. You have no idea whether or not their adult children are in favor of a war. Why should their adult children have to serve in the military just because their parent votes on a war the adult child may or may not support?

Those who support or vote for the war should be the ones who should be fighting the war. And if their children are opposed to the war, then those politicians should vote against the war. The USA desperately needs a draft whereby those who have been supporting the war should bear the consequences of their actions and not impose their wills on others.

 

[louis91766]

It’s not a question of implementation. It is a question of the rights of an adult whom you want to force into service because of their parents, while everyone else in the country gets to choose whether or not they serve. You are taking an immoral position IMO.

A policy of forcing these people into service might cause these politicians to take a second look at the consequences of their warlike stance. These wars cause nothing but harm and death to innocent people. Just the other day I read of 6 children being killed by drone strikes in Afghanistan. Why is it fair and moral for the NATO to kill six innocent children who have done nothing wrong?
nytimes.com/2011/11/25/world/asia/six-afghan-children-are-killed-in-nato-airstrike.html

 

[rlg94086]

Those who support or vote for the war should be the ones who should be fighting the war. And if their children are opposed to the war, then those politicians should vote against the war. The USA desperately needs a draft whereby those who have been supporting the war should bear the consequences of their actions and not impose their wills on others.

I’m sorry, but that is just plain nutty. You are saying that in order to vote in favor of going to war, a Congressman either needs to enlist or force his offspring to enlist. Or, they have to vote according to what their offspring want to do. What if there is a split decision - 2 offspring in favor, but 2 offspring against. Can the Congressman vote “maybe” and just put the 2 in favor on notice that they will have to go?

You obviously didn’t think this through.

If you want a draft, that is fine. Be in favor of a draft. But, it has absolutely nothing to do with how a Congressman votes in relation to his/her adult offspring.

 

[donsnow]

By that criterion, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia should be seen in that light, too. In terms of numbers of dollars and numbers of militants funded and supplied, they probably surpass Iran. al-Qaeda, the Afghan Taliban, the Pakistani Taliban, and the Haqqani Network have uttered hostile statements against Israel as well as against the west. Israel should be wanting to bomb them, too, but they don’t talk that way.

Is it any coincidence that these two are also US allies, even though they treat the US like dirt?

Good evening, colmywaykurtz,

I respectfully disagree that guerrilla warfare (which is what the terrorists are, guerrilla fighters for a religion or an idea) should be seen in the same light as a military war of conquest waged by the uniformed Marines, soldiers, airmen and sailors of a nation. They are two distinctly different types of war.

Of course Israel doesn’t want to bomb all those organizations. It’s just Iran supplying Syria, Hezbollah and Hamas with munitions to kill Jews in Israel that Israel rightly focuses on.

I think we’re wandering again … the OP is about the USofA and Iran, with nukes as a sub topic.

God loves you,
Don

 

[donsnow]

And does God love the young children of Japan? If so, what right did the USA have to murder thousands of innocent Japanese children, who God loves, by dropping an atomic bomb on them?

Good evening, Louis,

Although your question is off-topic, I will respond to it, because it’s addressed to me.

God loves all the Chinese men, women and children that the Japanese slaughtered during the “Rape of Singapore” and in other places in China at that time, during their war of conquest. He merely sent the Allies to avenge that.

God loves you,
Don

 

[edwest2]

I’m new to this forum, but I am interested in reactions to HR 1905, the Iran Threat Reduction Act, which is not being mentioned in the mainstream media I’ve seen.

This act apparently bars any US government official from contacting any Iranian government official, including any member of the Defense department or State dept. Of course, the more hawkish Israeli lobbyists are likely pushing for this, and it is “election season” so the money flows freely.

I am more than a little concerned about this. Congress is overwhelmingly in favor of this bill, as they always put huge support behind any bill that supports Israel, regardless of the behavior of the Israeli government’s actions against human rights, confiscation of land, etc. This thread is not about Israel’s right to do what they do, however, they are understandably justified in their own minds that what they do is right, as are the Palestinians.

Israel is a threat to Iran. No doubt, Israeli nuclear weapons are aimed squarely at population centers in Iran, and the Iranian leaders probably want a nuclear weapon as a deterrent (if nothing else), even though they say they don’t want to build one. In the past Iran has called for a nuclear-free zone in the Middle East, but it has fallen on deaf ears in the US. The “Iran threat”, as was the “Iraq threat”, is not a matter of US national security, it is a matter of Israeli security. Why do we keep putting our own soldiers in harms way?

It seems to me that the more Christian approach to the problem is to first forgive all those involved (assuming people resent one side or the other) and then to work towards reconciliation between the two nations. We cannot do this with this congressional act, it severely, in an unprecedented way, ties the hands of our executive branch. There is big money (the West Bank Real Estate lobby) pushing us into bombing Iran, and this is clearly a step in that direction.

Reactions?

This is a complicated situation. First, allies generally sign agreements to help other allies in times of war, or when clear signs of some type of military action are obvious.

Who remembers what Israel did in the case of the Osirak nuclear reactor that Iraq had built?

jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/osirak1.html

No one knows what Israeli and American intelligence knows regarding the full extent of the Iranian nuclear program. If underground, as some claim, the use of bunker busting bombs, or a similar weapon, could destroy or seriously cripple the whole program.

I believe it was former Egyptian President Anwar Sadat who said that one reason he made peace with Israel was that he realized he was not just fighting Israel but the United States.

This country came to the aid of the British in World Wars I and II.

Peace,
Ed

 

[donsnow]

interesting discussion… I am writing from Jerusalem so find this of interest.

Politically, it seems to me that the bottom line is this:

Israel does not threaten Iran’s destruction in any way. Israel is not interested at all in a conflict with Iran.

On the other hand, Iran’s president has repeatedly declared his desire and intention to bring an end to the Jewish state, while simultaneously racing after nukes.

It seems to me that as Catholics we have a double reason to support Israel: first theologically (touching upon the virtue of faith), and politically (touching upon the virtue of justice).

I have expanded upon these ideas in the article Israel between Past, Present and Future

Comments welcome!

Ariel
Catholics for Israel

Good evening, Ariel,

Thanks for posting your understanding of Israel’s position on Iran. I think this is a prime sub-topic to the OP.

I have gone to your link and started reading the article. I’ve bookmarked to finish reading it later.

I’ve always favored Israel and view the Jews as His first adopted children and Christians as His second adopted children. I am sure He still loves his turned away first adopted.

God loves you,
Don

 

[louis91766]

I’m sorry, but that is just plain nutty. You are saying that in order to vote in favor of going to war, a Congressman either needs to enlist or force his offspring to enlist. Or, they have to vote according to what their offspring want to do. What if there is a split decision - 2 offspring in favor, but 2 offspring against. Can the Congressman vote “maybe” and just put the 2 in favor on notice that they will have to go?

You obviously didn’t think this through.

If you want a draft, that is fine. Be in favor of a draft. But, it has absolutely nothing to do with how a Congressman votes in relation to his/her adult offspring.

I disagree and I don’t think it is nutty at all. Rather those who advocate war are the problem and not those who are for peace. Rather than hurling slurs like calling people who want peace nutty, why don’t people use their skills to promote peace and goodwill among men as the Bible encourages us to do. Why is it all right to kill six innocent children, when they have nothing to do with the situation in which they find themselves? If we require all children of age and all relatives of age of a Congressman who votes in favor of war to be required to join the military service and put their lives at risk, it might prompt the Congressman to give greater reflection to the harm which is being done by these wars. I don’t see any justification for killing six children and there are further reports of Pakistani soldiers being killed by drone strikes. How many more years does the American war machine want to spend in Afghanistan? Where is all this money coming from and where is it going?

 

[donsnow]

So, you guys are saying that an adult son/daughter of a president or member of Congress should have no personal say in whether or not they serve in the military? :ehh:

“No conscientious objection for you!” (using Soup Nazi voice)

Good evening, rig,

Frankly, I’ve always favored the old fashioned idea of:

Either the leader of two nations at war meet in an arena and duel, to decide the war;

Or, each national leader appoints a champion, which champion represents the entire nation when at war and meets in the arena to contest the other champion, to decide the war.

Of course, none of the powers that be pay any attention to me.

God loves you,
Don

 

[louis91766]

Good evening, Louis,

Although your question is off-topic, I will respond to it, because it’s addressed to me.

God loves all the Chinese men, women and children that the Japanese slaughtered during the “Rape of Singapore” and in other places in China at that time, during their war of conquest. He merely sent the Allies to avenge that.

God loves you,
Don

I would dispute the idea that God sent the Allies to drop the atomic bomb on innocent people. I don’t see any verification of this.

 

[louis91766]

Good evening, rig,

Frankly, I’ve always favored the old fashioned idea of:

Either the leader of two nations at war meet in an arena and duel, to decide the war;

Or, each national leader appoints a champion, which champion represents the entire nation when at war and meets in the arena to contest the other champion, to decide the war.

Of course, none of the powers that be pay any attention to me.

God loves you,
Don

This is an excellent idea.

 

[rlg94086]

Good evening, rig,

Frankly, I’ve always favored the old fashioned idea of:

Either the leader of two nations at war meet in an arena and duel, to decide the war;

Or, each national leader appoints a champion, which champion represents the entire nation when at war and meets in the arena to contest the other champion, to decide the war.

Of course, none of the powers that be pay any attention to me.

God loves you,
Don

Maybe they should just get together and play Risk.