It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Lets do it this way

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 29 2004 @ 06:19 PM
link   
Lets do it this way

Lets start at the top..lets start in Congress and take the sons and daugthers of the Congress Members and send them over there. Lets Go to Harvard, Yale and take the young men and women that are paying their own tuition and send them over there. I wonder just how many would go? And I wonder just how fast we would be out of there if they were the ones that had to go next???
And lets give our blessings to the young men and women that are there...that are their because they don't have the same opportunities as the above mentioned...and the ones that have lost their lives in the name of freedom. Don't get me wrong, I would go if I could, if it meant we would remain free...I think our freedom is highly overrated.
AND IM MAD

Dang....That was a strong statement...I love America, I just hate it's leader.


[Edited on 29-4-2004 by foodgoddess]




posted on Apr, 29 2004 @ 06:50 PM
link   
Send them where? Where's there? Was this supposed to be a reply?



posted on Apr, 29 2004 @ 07:16 PM
link   
What purpose would that serve? Why would you send your leaders off to die? Do you expect 4-star generals to pick up a rifle and start shooting at grunts?

There is a very well-defined and well-understood reason that strategic leaders lead from the rear and tactical leaders lead from the front.

It happens to do with perspective and policy. Sure, you make the congressmen and congresswomen fight on the line, or their children fight on the line, and soon you dont fight anymore wars. But some wars need to be fought. Soon you dont fight the fights that are needed.

Plus, both Bush and Kerry have done "some" service. In fact, many congressional representatives have done time in the armed forces. More time than you have, more time than i have. These people have all also gone to college, etc.

These traits are what qualifies them to be where they are: civil service, higher education, charisma, and eagerness to make "deals". The people who run the administrations are simply better qualified to do so, and to train someone to do what theydo places a nominal burden upon society. To subject them to circumstances that would inhibit their capacity to make the decisions that need to be made would be doubly-foolish. One would be wasting the investment that had been made to train a politico-type, one would be inhibiting the decision making capacity of the very same politico-type.

If you don't agree with the decisions being made, i suggest you increase your influence over the choices being made. This is not nearly as hard you probably imagine it to be. You could start by writing a representative, you could get a degree, you could invest your time and effort into pursuing a political career, or you could just keep voting, though i doubt this will have the effect you desire.

I assure you though, that if you ever reach a position of political influence, you will not want to yourself go fight and die, nor would you want your children to go fight and die. Basically, i presume this is fundamental to all of human experience.

You blame the politicians for not fighting, or having their children fight, because you may have to fight or have your children fight.

The only difference is that they've worked harder to make sure that its yours and not theirs. Its how this world works, and im okay with that.

Its a democracy, everyone is garunteed a say. As a result everyones default say is very small. As an added bonus however, one can increase their say drastically, through work.

Think of it like money. Really, its not the rich peoples job to make sure you have toilet-paper to wipe your ass with, its your own. Its not their job to make sure you or your children dont die in Iraq, its your own.

[Edited on 29-4-2004 by Cascadego]



posted on Apr, 29 2004 @ 07:27 PM
link   
I completely agree, foodgoddess. There used to be a time when the leaders of countries actually led their people into battle. Bush and Blair haven't got the guts to go themselves, and would # themselves if any of their families had to go, but they're both happy to send everyone else's kids to fight and possibly die.

The only person I really have respect for as far as 'leaders' and their families are concerned is Prince Andrew, Duke of York. He went to the Falklands during the early 80's and flew a chopper and was in the thick of it.

It shouldn't be anything to do with 'rich and poor', either everyone has the chance to go, or no-one. Just because you have a rich daddy shouldn't mean you can get out serving if everyone else is forced to do so.




posted on Apr, 29 2004 @ 09:40 PM
link   


Send them where? Where's there? Was this supposed to be a reply?


If im not mistaken the only logical place would be IRAQ and I see your dismay...it was in response to THE WAR.

Im not saying that a 4 star General go fight, but how about his son/daugther, or how about any of our fearless leaders children...Of the 535 members of Congress, at least seven have a great personal interest: They have children in the military who already are participating in the war or could be called to do so.

I think it sucks that the majority of soldiers are "kids" off the streets with no where else to go but the military


LOVE YOUR FLAG Pisky



posted on Apr, 29 2004 @ 09:47 PM
link   
Cascadego


I assure you though, that if you ever reach a position of political influence, you will not want to yourself go fight and die, nor would you want your children to go fight and die. Basically, i presume this is fundamental to all of human experience.


LOL why would my child be any different than any other child? Because I hold some postion that makes him immune??? The mother's and father's of the children that are in this war...have the same tears and fears just because they work at a gas station and are not a political figuar doesnt lessen the PAIN



posted on Apr, 29 2004 @ 10:04 PM
link   
Fool... that is precisely what i had just said. Maybe you should try reconnecting the "think" to your "speak".

In case you're confused, im pretty sure the "think" comes first.

[Edited on 29-4-2004 by Cascadego]



posted on Apr, 29 2004 @ 10:24 PM
link   
this is exactly why they will never reinstate the draft.
the government is only willing to send people from impoverished regions of the country.
if you send the son or daughter of a political leader, there will be action taken.
the government can't afford that, because when that happens, the entire reason behind the war will be in question.



posted on Apr, 30 2004 @ 09:13 AM
link   
Cascadego
I am not confused at all and it was with my thinking ability that I posted....
echelon said what I was unable to convey:
posted on 29-4-2004 at 03:24 PM
this is exactly why they will never reinstate the draft.
the government is only willing to send people from impoverished regions of the country.
if you send the son or daughter of a political leader, there will be action taken.
the government can't afford that, because when that happens, the entire reason behind the war will be in question.

Peace



posted on Apr, 30 2004 @ 01:44 PM
link   
Then, pray tell, elucidate how one may garner this political message about the draft from your post?


Originally posted by foodgoddess
Cascadego

LOL why would my child be any different than any other child? Because I hold some postion that makes him immune??? The mother's and father's of the children that are in this war...have the same tears and fears just because they work at a gas station and are not a political figuar doesnt lessen the PAIN


I dont see the connection frankly.

I object to the notion that the government only sends soldiers from impoverished areas. I certainly do not live in or near an impoverished area yet 3 of my friends are currently active in afghanistan and iraq. The ROTC program at my campus is burgeoning with upper middle class WASPs, and certainly you wont deny that the military is all volunteer currently, so those who are fighting are those who have chosen to.

Also, as i recall, the news services have been splattering that football player all over the news, $3-mil this that or whatever, he doesnt sound impoverished to me.

Then there is the whole aspect of "else people would start questioning the basis of the war", which, as i presume you are aware, certainly has been going on since months before the war actually started, at least 18 months now.

[Edited on 30-4-2004 by Cascadego]



posted on Apr, 30 2004 @ 02:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by echelon
this is exactly why they will never reinstate the draft.
the government is only willing to send people from impoverished regions of the country.


No one is sent, they choose to go, and they usually know this when they ENLIST, dont give me any 60s Race Draft crap. The people who are in Iraq are from every socio-economic background in the country, the government doesnt selectively choose who it sends, it sends who it needs, and if impoverished fellows looking to succeed join the infantry, then guess what? theres a chance you might actually have to do something in the military.



posted on Apr, 30 2004 @ 03:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cascadego
These traits are what qualifies them to be where they are: civil service, higher education, charisma, and eagerness to make "deals".


The only difference is that they've worked harder to make sure that its yours and not theirs. Its how this world works, and im okay with that.

Its a democracy, everyone is garunteed a say. As a result everyones default say is very small. As an added bonus however, one can increase their say drastically, through work.

Think of it like money. Really, its not the rich peoples job to make sure you have toilet-paper to wipe your ass with, its your own. Its not their job to make sure you or your children dont die in Iraq, its your own.

[Edited on 29-4-2004 by Cascadego]


That first bit sounds suspiciously like what was carved onto the front of every concentration camp during Hitlers regime "Work will set you free". If it was true that hard work really set people free, then you wouldn't have a single minimum wage slave, standing behind the line working his ass off and quietly suffering intense pain because he has no medical insurance to ease his pain. Free ? I think NOT. It seems to me it's the ones who work the least, but make the most money who are the freest.

As to the second bit. YOU may be ok with it, but there are a growing number of people who are NOT, and will fight against the army being peppered with mostly poor folks who had nowhere else to go.

If TPTB want people to quit bitching about this issue, then they need to damn well, start inducting the richies of this world as well, into their armies.

According to you, the rich are the only ones deserving of a life free to do as they please, while the poor need to stay in their boxes and shut up and follow orders.

Well, guess what ? The poor are the biggest segment of society, NOT the rich and one day, I don't know when but I can feel it coming, the poor are going to rise up and start taking what's rightfully theirs. Which would be the same amount of freedom that the rich currently get. Not to mention a livable wage, and affordable housing, enough food to eat, and medical insurance.

Your last paragraph only proves my point, Cascadego, with people like you it always comes down to money.



posted on Apr, 30 2004 @ 10:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by KayEm

That first bit sounds suspiciously like what was carved onto the front of every concentration camp during Hitlers regime "Work will set you free".




The comment 'Arbeit Macht Frei' (Variously translated as 'Work makes one free', 'Work Liberates' or 'Work brings freedom') was emblazoned on the entrance gates of Auschwitz I.



[Edited on 30-4-2004 by Pisky]



posted on May, 6 2004 @ 10:44 AM
link   
Let's suit up Bush's daughters and send them to fight for their Country's freedom. They aren't too good for that are they?



posted on May, 6 2004 @ 12:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by AdmiralGates
Let's suit up Bush's daughters and send them to fight for their Country's freedom. They aren't too good for that are they?


This whole arguement is idiotic, and I have been seeing it frequently lately.

Having one's son or daughter at war is not a prerequisit for having an opinion about it or even to make the decision to go to war. The whole idea defies logic.

I'm sure everyone is aware of the "volunteer" military we have now. I sure am, I was in the Marine Corps Infatry.

The military is a tool to be used. A person does not have to be personaly invested in the tool in order to use it, or even to deam it nessicary to use it.

Whether or not the war was just, correct, or lawful is besides the point right now. We can not really pull out no matter what happens.

As for the "military is filled with the poor", you obviously are ignorant of the military in general. Even the enlisted ranks have a fair account of the social classes.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join