What unbelievable hubris and arrogance to be willing to GAMBLE other Americans lives for a coin toss.
What if you lose?
I have such a problem with this argument because it's so selective. This argument was made with Bosnia and now with Libya, but not by the right when we were preparing to invade both Afghanistan and Iraq.
Do you think it is worth a similar gamble to protect our own borders and ourselves? If not why not? If yes, when will you begin to support that?
Way before 9/11 happened , I was arguing with my right wing friends that it made sense to use our military to protect our borders--mainly the southern border--and to cut down on the amount of illegal immigration and drug crossings. They all thought that would be a misuse of the military, even though at that time the country had excess active duty and reserve personnel. Now, of course, the military is stretched, making border protection a bit of a logistical problem. In theory, though, I don't see it as a misuse of the military to protect our borders. What do you think?
Your opinion would have some value if you were a volunteer doing the fighting and gambling with your own life.
Have you ever served in the US Armed Forces? Have you ever risked your life in a gunfight to help someone else or to kill someone else? or kill many someone elses?
No, I haven't but I was raised in a military family and grew up on bases around the world. My dad was a career AF pilot, a bomber pilot in WWII, and part of the atom bomb testing done in the Pacific in the late 50s, flying secret weather reconnaissance missions out of Hickam where we were stationed in Hawaii. We were also members of the first squadron to open the SAC base in Little Rock, Arkansas, where my dad finished his career conducting training missions. I'm proud of his service and believe that when one joins the military, they accept the fact that they may become the pawn in someone's else's decisionmaking. If I were a volunteer, it would never occur to me to fret that my life was being gambled with because I had already accepted that on the front end.
So I guess this is a round about way of saying that I don't have a problem with the fact that when a nation maintains a military, it's inherent in the whole scheme of things that those lives will be gambled with. In fact, I think your argument is somewhat dangerous and subversive to military cohesiveness. I'm not trying to insult you, but how can a military work if members are second guessing the decisions of those above them, or wanting to pick and choose those engagments that make sense, or fostering feelings of persecution that their lives are being trifled with. Seriously. I see this as dangerously erosive to overall military success.
I was genuinely surprised by your emotional response and sorry if I offended you. One reason I'm surprised by your arguments is that I thought you had been military yourself at one time.
As for Libya, it doesn't seem to me that our military will be exposed to much harm if any. The Libyan army is puny--only 10,00--and was pretty neutered with only a few air strikes. At this point, Gaddafi can probably just be squeezed out by the cutting off of arms and money. Time is not on his side, imo.
FWIW, my dad would have been appalled by the Iraq invasion. I think, though, he would have been proud to take on this Libyan excursion.
When are you going to start preaching to us about the Koran and the wonderful Sharia laws?
Or have you?
What have I ever said to put that notion in your head? For some reason, you're stereotyping me. All I can say is don't--because you can't. I'm all over the place and don't fit neatly into whatever the current right or left memes are. My opinions are my own plus I'm willing to freely change them when additional info leads me in a new direction. |
