! MisGuided Rhetoric !

[Maeve_Mari]

Originally Posted by jeff

Just because it's in Latin doesn't make it right.

I love that!

[gojujay]

Cutlass- what about the rest of the Demoncrats and the rest of the Republicons? It seems you used only those with significant name recognition. How about a comparison, by party, of veterans. I'd look, but I don't know where to start ( problem with google, toooo much information ).

[Rogue]

Thankfully, the Founders provided for civilian leadership of the country and military.
Also, With this rational why did you dems vote for Clinton over Dole?

*One should provide some sort of citation for material cut-and-pasted from another web site.

[jeff]

Originally Posted by Rogue

Thankfully, the Founders provided for civilian leadership of the country and military.

Hear, hear!

Originally Posted by Rogue

Also, With this rational why did you dems vote for Clinton over Dole?

The point isn't "only veterans should serve" (which would be inconsistent for voting for Clinton over Dole), but that "people who didn't serve are impugning the courage and patriotism of those who did". Republicans have used rhetoric of smearing Democrats as pacifists, cowards and weaklings for 30+ years - including the current campaign. It's only fair to point out how few of the ones with the big mouths actually served.

[jeff]

I just read this story from the campaign of the first President Bush: a bunch of veterans from other planes got together and accused Bush of cowardice for having bailed out of his plane, causing his crew mates to die. Eerily like the current Swift boat veterans story. This got to Dukakis, who dismissed this and didn't let it become part of the campaign rhetoric. Imagine if the current Bush had the class to say "I don't believe the claims of these Swift boat guys, and I hereby call on them to stop." But he doesn't - he wants to benefit from the smearing (which Cheney and others continue with different wording), while distancing himself from it.

On the other hand, Bush I had Lee Atwater and the Willie Horton smear, and after all, Dukakis did lose. Maybe you lose if you don't go into the gutter.

[Soldier]

Originally Posted by Westley

That should be the new democratic symbol- an army/air force soldier with a buzcut, hard muscles, and put against a blue background of the rippling sea and star specked night. That would be awesome for Kerry. Get rid of that association dems have to being weak. Soldier- you republican?

You can keep your Democrats to yourself, or send them to Navy!

But, as pointed out above, the vast majority of people in the military, and/or veterans, are Republican. So complain all you want about leadership not having been in battle themselves, but most of those who have been, happen to agree with them.

[jeff]

Soldier - that's a very recent change in profile. Hmmm. Maybe the draft should come back. That would fix this particular issue!

[Soldier]

No, it really isn't.

[jeff]

Yes it is (No it isn't) - repeat as many times as needed.

In my Dad's and older cousins' generation (like my cousin the liberal ex-Marine), it was nowhere near as lopsided.

Besides, I think I detect from your earlier post a sentiment that "the Navy is the real enemy" You wanna expand on that?

I really should go do work now - I have Yet Another Business Trip but this is more fun than preparing

[Soldier]

Well, it was in my dad's generation.

And he could beat up your dad.


And what would the armed services be without friendly rivalry?

[jeff]

My dad was probably a lot older than yours... but my dad was in the Army Air Corp, and loaded B25s, so he could take out your whole neighborhood! Anyhow, same service.

Isn't the real struggle enlisted vs. officer?

[Soldier]

Exactly why mad dad could beat your dad up - he's still (relatively) young (can't be allthat young at O-6). And worse comes to worst, I'll send my old fencing instructor after you. He was a B-52 munitions guy, and is now your stereotypical right-wing gun-nut whack-job. And damned proud of it.

[Soldier]

And while officer and enlisted are quite different, I've yet to discover a struggle between them. Excepting the really awful officers, but then, everybody has a struggle with them.

[Sarah]

The draft should not come back. If it does, I swear I'll go on a murder spree. hehe, yeah... just joshing, but I will not be involved with them. I believe in the fundamental rights. I don't want to give up my liberty for safety, that is just an oxymoron. I want all of my liberty, and I will fight for it.

[Soldier]

Originally Posted by Sarah

...and I will fight for it.

Then how about sacrificing your safety for someone else's freedom?

[Sarah]

That completely depends upon the situation.

[Point_Left]

Originally Posted by Sarah

That completely depends upon the situation.

So what limits do you place on the situation? Do you have to know the person to sacrifice your safety? Just curious... However just about every member of the armed forces in Canada and the US has offered to sacrifice their sefety for your freedom, and often for that of citizens of other countries (peacekeeping.). Are you willing to protect your fellow citizens freedom? The same for citizen of other countries? Only the freedom of your friends and family? Or some mixture?

You can have freedom, or you can have safety. And you can't have one if someone doesn't sacrifice the other. The US gov't is sacrificing many freedoms in the name of security. Armies went and sacrificed their safety to gain feedom. I suppose each individual (and country) must decide where the balance lies.

[Sarah]

I think that you are wrong in saying that. You can be safer with freedoms, such as owning a gun. If a guy was going to mug someone and there were no laws prohibiting gun ownership, do you think that he would be as bold as he would if there were (example, no hidden guns, certificates to get guns, no carrying knives.. and the like)? Most people can protect themselves, but they are too lazy to try. They would rather give up everyone's freedom to carry arms to feel 'safe'. We should listen to Ben Franklin... "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.", "There was never a good war or a bad peace.", "Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become more corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.".

[Point_Left]

[quote=Sarah]You can be safer with freedoms, such as owning a gun. QUOTE]

But are you safer? Everyone can own a gun, including muggers, psycos, and the like. Not only are you free to do as you wish, but everyone else is as well. What they wish to do may include shooting you and taking you money. Not everyone is a rational individual. I imagine that if that was the case, not only would we all be free, but guns would be obsolete. I still say that you can be free, or you can be safe (unless you have the good fortune to live in a society populated by rational individuals..). A balance must be struck. We cannot do everything we want. As long as we do not restrict fundamental freedoms, that balance should be in the right place. (The problem lies in deciding which are fundamental...)

As far as whether or not I think a mugger would be more bold, I think that there would be fewer muggers, but those that were would be far more bold. They would have guns, and they would make sure that they drew first (before you even see them). Lower risk of being mugged, but the potential consequences are much greater.

[gojujay]

Originally Posted by Soldier

You can keep your Democrats to yourself, or send them to Navy!

We don't want them. Carter was a bubblehead, a weird bunch in anybody's book.