Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: aladin who wrote (77164)	10/13/2004 2:10:21 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 793797

even Kerry would see this as requiring action and even North Easterners would send their sons... Indeed. Absent that, who wants to be the last soldier killed or left MIA by a Government more concerned with international politics than its own soldiers. Likewise, who wants to be the last soldier or the first soldier or the middle soldier killed in a war that is not necessary or not valid? It seems to me that we all want some control over that for which we may sacrifice our lives. No one wants to die due to battlefield ineptitude or poor planning, either. No one wants to be cannon fodder. I grew up on WWII movies. I remember clearly how many were portrayed as dying taking some hill that was quickly abandoned. I was quite young when I determined I was unwilling to volunteer for that kind of fate. I respect the decision of soldiers who would not want to serve under Kerry. I'm willing to make sacrifices but I want to decide what's worth it. I can't fault others for the same approach. I find it interesting, though, that folks who won't take up arms for what they consider Bush's unnecessary war get heaped with scorn hereabouts. Yet folks who would lay down their arms rather than continue to serve under Kerry even though the enemy is still a threat are supported by the thread. Why is that? Seems to me that each is simply deciding for himself what is worth his personal sacrifice. In the case of the former, for people who don't think the terrorists are much of a threat, then obviously they wouldn't think the war worth their sacrifice or anyone else's. You can't fault them on patriotism if they don't believe we're at exitential risk. You can consider them misguided, but not unpatriotic. For the latter, presumably they do see a threat and do think it's worth their sacrifice or they wouldn't be there. To walk away when the threat is still there, even with the excuse of not being adequately supported by the new CIC, is of questionable patriotism, IMO.

To: aladin who wrote (77164)	10/13/2004 7:50:40 PM
From: Sully-	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793797

An excellent response John. I don't doubt for a second that any person currently serving who may be thinking of leaving the military should Kerry become CIC, would indeed valiantly fight to the last to defend this country. And they would also stand ready to return to defend us against a serious, imminent threat to national security. "who wants to be the last soldier killed or left MIA by a Government more concerned with international politics than its own soldiers" Why remain in service when you may well be placed in harms way, left to the vagaries of changes in the political winds which could cause you to be an easily sacrificed pawn while we pass a "global test"? Under these circumstances, to have no faith in the CIC based on his own words & deeds does not impune ones patriotism. "Al-Qaeda is not a motorcycle gang." And when was the last time a cell of prostitutes became suicide bombers or hijacked a passenger jet & turned it into a missile?