More on the NYTInquirer

[fatman]

From March 2003

As one of 99 senators who voted on Thursday to commend President Bush for his leadership on Iraq, Tim Johnson, Democrat of South Dakota, wanted the troops to know that ''we are proud of our military, proud of their capability and confident that they will win this war.''

Mr. Johnson's pride, though, is tinged with a father's fear. He is the lone member of the Senate -- and possibly the only member of Congress -- whose child is helping in the fighting in Iraq.

Link:  http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F0CE3D81F31F931A15750C0A9659C8B63

From March 2005

At least four Republicans and one Democrat in Congress have had children serving in Iraq.

Link:  http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,150275,00.html

Wow, out of 548 people (both houses of Congress, one President, one vice President-Senate President, and 9 Supreme Court Justices), 6 have children in the Iraq operation.  That's just over 1%.  Add up all the eligible children of these people and take away those serving, I think that the number is probably under 1%.  Anything to add rich?

[Rich]

So you believe unless a member of Congress has a child in the military, he/she should never support American war efforts.

You're not only fat, you're stupid.

[sirs]

Wow, out of 548 people (both houses of Congress, one President, one vice President-Senate President, and 9 Supreme Court Justices), 6 have children in the Iraq operation.  That's just over 1%.  Add up all the eligible children of these people and take away those serving, I think that the number is probably under 1%.

It is a voluntary enterprise, Fat.  Are you advocating a draft aimed at apparently rich politically connected folks?

[fatman]

So you believe unless a member of Congress has a child in the military, he/she should never support American war efforts.

This is a statement, judging by the punctuation.  It's also false, and I have never made that claim.

[fatman]

It is a voluntary enterprise, Fat.  Are you advocating a draft aimed at apparently rich politically connected folks?

Not at all sirs.  It's just ironic to me that Congress (both parties) will risk what others give but not themseves.  As I mentioned in my reply to BT, I'd personally have no problem with a draft with no deferrals.  But that's moot because deferrals will always be given.

I was responding to rich's point that anyone who wasn't wanting to serve was "Yeah, let some other fool die for his country".  It seems to me that judging by Rich's point of view, Congress is guilty of this.

[sirs]

It is a voluntary enterprise, Fat.  Are you advocating a draft aimed at apparently rich politically connected folks?

Not at all sirs.  It's just ironic to me that Congress (both parties) will risk what others give but not themseves.

So......you're advocating that they, as members of congress, FORCE their adult children to enter the military??  With all due respect, this is an arguement that kinda goes along the lines that unless you have some intimate grasp and connection with the service, you should not be allowed to make any conclusions, assessments, or decisions for anyone else, regarding the service.  Is that about right?  So, that begs the requirement of course that we can have no President unless they themselves have served or at minimum have made their children serve. 

Is that what you're of the mindset of?  Because if not, you're just "venting", as far as I can tell

As I mentioned in my reply to BT, I'd personally have no problem with a draft with no deferrals.  But that's moot because deferrals will always be given.

Precisely.....which takes us back to my original query above

[Xavier_Onassis]

If a cause is worthy of sending other peoples' kids to fight it, it would seem that it should also be worthy of sending one's own.


I question that the Iraq War is any sort of worthy cause, especially when the doofuses who started it, Juniorbush and Cheney do not consider conservation to be worthy of supporting even with speeches, let alone actions.
 

[sirs]

If a cause is worthy of sending other peoples' kids to fight it, it would seem that it should also be worthy of sending one's own.

So, we can count Xo as being on record that no President can serve unless they've served the military or have made their kids serve.  Well, since a President is also CnC of the military, and may be required to send the military into battle hot spots for a "good cause", that knocks out Hillary & Obama out.  I wonder who Xo is going to vote for now.  Gore as a write-in candidate, perhaps? 

[fatman]

So......you're advocating that they, as members of congress, FORCE their adult children to enter the military??  With all due respect, this is an arguement that kinda goes along the lines that unless you have some intimate grasp and connection with the service, you should not be allowed to make any conclusions, assessments, or decisions for anyone else, regarding the service.  Is that about right?  So, that begs the requirement of course that we can have no President unless they themselves have served or at minimum have made their children serve. 

Obviously members of Congress should not force their adult children to serve.  And that's not what I advocate, unless you mean by a non-deferral draft, which I do support.  Nor is military service necessary for an executive or representative.  I've never made that claim.

This was an example to rebut Rich's implication that people who don't want to serve in the military, and don't want to fight in a war, are selfish and/or cowardly.  He made this implication with the comment:

Yeah, let some other fool die for his country.

If people who won't serve or won't fight are selfish and/or cowardly, what does that say about the children of the government representatives, Justices, and executives?  If Rich is going to fling his monkey shit around, I'm going to fling it right back.

[sirs]

So......you're advocating that they, as members of congress, FORCE their adult children to enter the military??  With all due respect, this is an arguement that kinda goes along the lines that unless you have some intimate grasp and connection with the service, you should not be allowed to make any conclusions, assessments, or decisions for anyone else, regarding the service.  Is that about right?  So, that begs the requirement of course that we can have no President unless they themselves have served or at minimum have made their children serve. 

Obviously members of Congress should not force their adult children to serve. 

Then basically.......you're just venting?  Irritated that not more of congress critters' children don't volunteer to serve their country, by joining the military, in the oft chance we may have to do battle or go to war?  Just trying to get the lay of your analytical land here, Fat.

This was an example to rebut Rich's implication that people who don't want to serve in the military, and don't want to fight in a war, are selfish and/or cowardly. 

So, not so much irritated at congress as you are at..... Rich?       

[fatman]

Irritated that not more of congress critters' children don't volunteer to serve their country, by joining the military, in the oft chance we may have to do battle or go to war?

That's about the gist of it sirs, my opinion is that Congress takes a hell of a lot and as a general rule gives very little back.  There is something to that CCR song "Fortunate Son".  And it bothers me that things are this way, and probably aren't going to change.  So yeah, you could say that I'm venting too.

So, not so much irritated at congress as you are at..... Rich?       

Actually, I'm irritated at both of them.  Both could be considered reckless, immature, irresponsible, and hypocritical.  It grows old quickly seeing both Rich and Congress demonize anyone who disagrees.

That said, as I mentioned above, the original post was a counter to Rich's statement, and I believe that it's certainly legitimate in this context.

[sirs]

Irritated that not more of congress critters' children don't volunteer to serve their country, by joining the military, in the oft chance we may have to do battle or go to war?

That's about the gist of it sirs, my opinion is that Congress takes a hell of a lot and as a general rule gives very little back....It grows old quickly seeing both Rich and Congress demonize anyone who disagrees. 

That's a given, and it applies to both parties, and will simply keep getting worse.  Our best chance of changing that direction failed when the party that supposedly has a platform of limited government and fiscal discipline demonstrated to be just as Democrat as Democrats     

[Rich]

>>Is that what you're of the mindset of?  Because if not, you're just "venting", as far as I can tell<<

Bingo.

Bad day for the fat man.

[fatman]

That's a given, and it applies to both parties, and will simply keep getting worse.  Our best chance of changing that direction failed when the party that supposedly has a platform of limited government and fiscal discipline demonstrated to be just as Democrat as Democrats     

Point taken sirs