If you're for this war, than go fight it.

[Eddie Haskell]

If you really believe we're doing the right thing, it's your duty. Don't stand back here chanting, "Support our Troops". Have the courage of your convictions or forever wear the mark of a coward.

[shenmue]

1. "Wear," "then"

Spell check is your friend.

Write when you're angry much?

Do you like name-calling? Then you sign up. I want to see if you have the guts, or you just like to yell and threaten.

[Eddie Haskell]

4. Not angry, just old and sad.

[SammyWinstonJack]

16. Why should he sign up?

[Art_from_Ark]

30. Spell check can't distinguish the difference

between "than" and "then", so it's only really a casual acquaintance.

[tazkcmo]

2. I normally don't use that one.

But sometimes it fits. I said the same thing today due to the extreme amount of pleasure the poster seemed to be deriving just from the possibilities of bombs dropping on Syria. And not just a couple, like a "limited and surgical strike" would imply but LOTS of bombs. I didn't like our cheerleaders in H.S. and really don't care for them now.

[idwiyo]

3. 404 Chairbound Internet Commandos are already fighting a war! On an Intertubes! There!

[socialist_n_TN]

5. Or as another poster cleverly put it yesterday..........

101st Chairborne.

[Peregrine]

6. Would if I could

But I don't think the Army needs a 58 year old former counterintelligence agent 34 years removed.

[NuclearDem]

7. Or if you're too old to do so, encourage your kids!

Since it's such a fanfuckingtastic idea and Obama will be president forever!

[Eddie Haskell]

46. How about your grandchildren?

[Eddie Haskell]

47. Or how about your grandchildren?

[Cleita]

8. That would be BP, Exxon, Mobile etc., etc..

Doubt if you would catch anyone associated with them near any war zone.

[LearningCurve]

9. The reason I hate that line of reasoning

Is it can be used for so many other examples, and when you do, it doesn't work well as a guiding principle. Unless you are an anarchist, that is.

If you're for improved healthcare, then go to medical school.

If you're for abortion, go get one.

If you're anti-crime, become a policeman.

And so on. There are things we support, that we are not necessarily qualified or able to do. For the record, I am currently opposed to Syrian intervention. I would never use this argument however, because there are some military actions I have supported, and may do in the future.

[David Krout]

10. Who in the world is pro-crime?

Have you ever met anyone who advocates that everyone should go out there and commit all kinds of crimes?

[LearningCurve]

18. In theory, everyone is ant-war as well

No one goes out and says we should have war just for the sake of having war.

[David Krout]

44. You haven't met the neocons n/t

[Renew Deal]

36. There are DUers that are pro-crime

Particularly on the marijuana/drugs issue.

[chimpymustgo]

11. You're WRONG. If you're for this war, ENLIST. Enlist your kids.

If you're against healthcare, don't take any from the public dole.

If you're against abortion - don't get one. And don't force your girlfriend to.

If you're ant-crime - don't commit them.

And so on.

[el_bryanto]

12. Is it really going to be a war or a set of strikes? nt

[chimpymustgo]

13. If you're for it - whatever they say it will be - whatever it BECOMES - ENLIST your children.

These bloodthirsty bastards want WAR - ENDLESS war. They are lying and spinning and bullshitting the hapless public. Support it? Send your kids.

[el_bryanto]

14. I don't have any kids.

I'm sorry I can't participate in this particular game. For the record I haven't made up my mind completely, but I'm largely opposed to military strikes at this point. That said, the vitriol on the part of those who oppose this action certainly irritates me - it seems like you can't see how someone could come up with the other answer and still be a decent person.

Bryant

[chimpymustgo]

15. Seen this tired BS too many times. Seriously, F*CK PNAC, AIPAC and the warmongers.

NOT playing.

[el_bryanto]

17. You feel very strongly about it - strongly enough that people who disagree with you

are bad people.

I can see why people would get upset enough about what happened with the chemical attack that they would be willing to drop bombs or try and weaken the Assad regime.

But I don't think that such a policy is likely to work, without UN approval and backing (and probably not even then).

Bryant

[AnotherMcIntosh]

20. Bombing another countries is not going to war?

[LearningCurve]

19. In that case, if you're anti war

Don't go.

[idwiyo]

22. "If you are for abortion, go get one"? WTF? do you actually even understand what pro-choice means?

[LearningCurve]

25. Yes

My point is that the reasoning applied in the phrase "if you support the war, you should enlist" applies equally to many other issues. You can support military intervention without being required to having to enlist. The same holds true for other things, including abortion. You can be pro-choice, without choosing to have an abortion yourself.

You can be for freedom of religion, without being religious. You can support free speech, without agreeing with that speech or be required to participate in it. You can believe your city should provide trash removal, without having to take a job in sanitation.

[idwiyo]

28. One can not be pro-war without getting ONE's arse in the line of fire. Unless one is a hypocrite.

"Pro-life" is comparable to pro-war. See the difference yet?

Pro-war doesn't offer a CHOICE. It supports military action. Typically at the expense of OTHERS, be it military combatants on both sides or innocent civilians aka 'collateral damage'.

[LearningCurve]

32. No, I don't see a difference

Let me try a different analogy, one that is probably a more direct comparison. Someone says they are against crime. So that person supports having a police force risk their lives to make the city safer. By taking this position, I don't think that anyone should then be required to join the police force. In both the case of the police and the military, it is other people who will be in the most danger.

Both the police and the military personnel are volunteers. They know risk is potentially part of the job. We hire these folks to do a job, a job not everyone can or should do. Do you really think our military would be more efficient if many of these people enlisted?

[idwiyo]

33. You just described something that has more to do with pro-police force.

I'll explain why your argument is wrong:

I am in favour of reducing crime but not by increasing number of policemen on the streets , because it solves NOTHING, but increases a number of people in jail.

I support solving the root cause of the crime - economic inequality, unjust law, lack of education, restricted access to family planning, wars (yes, fucking WARS), lack of adequate healthcare (even here in UK), etc, etc.
I don't support penal system built on vengeance, I support one built with the goal of rehabilitation.

See the difference now?

[LearningCurve]

34. I still see no difference

I'll try yet another example. Back in the 80s, when AIDS first appeared, there were many people in hospitals that did not want to do their jobs in regards to an AIDS patient. Did the hospital have the right to demand they do so or be fired? You bet they did. That same line "Oh if you believe that person is entitled to treatment, then YOU treat him," was also used. When you take a position in a hospital, you accept certain risks.

The line "if you believe in this, then YOU do it," should not be the measure of how we set policy as a nation. There are a lot of unpleasant tasks that need to be done. Some people are qualified, some not, and some make other equally valuable and contributory choices. If I want to support building a public bridge, I shouldn't have to get a job in construction. Lots of people died building the Panama Canal, does that mean everyone who supported said canal should have had to go work there?

[idwiyo]

38. Brilliant! You managed to dig yourself into the hole. Please, do JOIN THE ARMY/NAVY and THAN

*you* (generic) can support a military action as long as it's YOUR arse that is doing the fighting.

I support any member of military forces who refuses to go to war for whatever reason (regardless if I agree with that reason or not).
I will support a war ONLY if it's a clearly defined defensive action. Nothing else.
I will never support getting involved in a civil war of another country. Military action coming from a foreign force does not solve the problem, never did, never will.


In the latest example you provided there is still a CHOICE - do your job at the hospital that provides services to everyone or get out. One could even get a position in the same hospital where they didn't have to deal with whatever they find "objectionable". *


* there were different reasons for refusing to treat AIDS patients - some bigotry related, some fear related. Neither are the reason to force someone to do a job they are clearly not fitted to do. As much as I hate bigots, I would prefer them to have a job they are doing willingly and to the best of their ability. I don't care what they 'think' as long as they don't harm anyone.

[LearningCurve]

39. Have to head to work, so only have time for a brief reply

We'll have to agree to disagree then, on the nature of a military commitment. When you enlist, you know going in that you do not get to choose the actions you will support. If you feel you can't sign on the dotted line under those conditions, then don't join. That is my position.

Regarding the claim foreign intervention has never ended a civil war, I suspect the people of Angola might disagree.

[idwiyo]

41. We will have to agree to disagree because my position is fundamentally different from yours.

When one enlists one does not sign off their choice. That choice can never be taken away, and exercising that choice should be greatly encouraged, in my opinion.

I will explain.

When one enlists, one's oath is to obey lawful orders as defined by the law of the country and by international law. My opinion is that the country doesn't even have to be a signatory to international law for that individual to exercise their choice.

I will go even further and state that any enlisted individual have a right to change their mind at any point during enlistment. Not only that, I believe they are the only judge to what is and isn't a lawful order. As long as *they* believe it isn't, they are in the right. What *I* think about that order doesn't matter. What anyone else thinks about that order doesn't matter. What the current law (local or international) says doesn't matter either. The only thing that matters is what that particular individual thinks.

The reason I support such an *extreme* position is because I am pro-choice. I do not have a right to force *my* beliefs on anyone. How can it be right to force an individual to fight for something they don't believe in?

You clearly believe that signing a specific piece of paper or saying some specific words removes an individual's right to decide what they are and aren't willing to die for. I don't. And that is a fundamental difference between two of us. This is why we will have to agree to disagree.

[Nye Bevan]

21. I have no problem with my son being the guy in the drone/missile control room.

He's pretty good at videogames so I think he would do an OK job.

[idwiyo]

24. This is the most revolting statement I have seen so far.

[warrant46]

27. It's certainly to the point isn't it

Those are the people who will some day proclaim

"But, I was only following orders."

[idwiyo]

29. You have a point there. But it's "leeeeeegal"! But I was told to do so! But it was my job!

Friggin hypocrites all of them.

[Niceguy1]

31. mine wants to join,

Pushing for navy...one can hope.

[CakeGrrl]

23. "No boots on the ground".

No one is being "sent".

[B Calm]

26. I say send Jon McCain & Lindsey Graham to Syria!

[Renew Deal]

35. I'm glad to see that you're standing with Reagan, Palin, and Bolton in opposing

Any response to chemical weapon attacks.

[scheming daemons]

37. silly OP, since no US boots will be on the ground

There wont be a "war" to fight.

[99Forever]

40. Really?

Then how come John "I was against war before I was for it" Kerry was using Weasel Words when asked that exact question?

The lying liars lie.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

42. That's not what Kerry said. He wants to keep that option open for himself and Obama:

[polly7]

43. Lobbing one missile on a sovereign nation is an act of war. nt.

[scheming daemons]

45. how does someone "sign up to fight it" in thst case?

That is what makes the op silly.