• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Question for Conservatives age 18-38

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
To me your answers all conflict with each other and your only solution is to "stay the course".
Click to expand...
No my response was that jumping ship is not an option...as you pointed out, we require an exit strategy that will facilitate stability...otherwise, leaving prematurely will ultimately destabilize the region and perhaps require American involvement at some point in the future.

You provide no justifacation for the war except that the end justifies the means. I think that in your heart, you know that's wrong.
Click to expand...
No, I said that for war in general, sometimes a nation, or individual soldiers, must make what would be considered morally unethical decisions if the endstate ultimately provides for the greater good and the saving of innocent lives...hence my reference to the atomic solution for Japan and firebombing for Germany during WW2.

You have no idea of what time limit we should give the Iraqis to organize themselves and carry on theirfight.
Click to expand...
Because you cannot place a time limit on military operations...we made that mistake during Vietnam, and the North Vietnamese exploited it...you win wars by setting strategic objectives and accomplishing those objectives...military strategy is not subject to time limits, but you do reach a point where the costs outweigh the perceived benefits.

We beat the USSR without going to war and I have no doubt that we can tame the Middle East without going to war. Instead you support a President that seems hell bent to make as much trouble in the world as he can.
Click to expand...
True, but the wars on the periphery that America and the USSR supported have made the mess that set the stage for Afghanistan and Iraq...every foreign policy decision has ripples, and decisions made during the Cold War set the groundwork for the current wars in the Middle East.

I'm sure you will say you don't like Bush. It seems to be getting hard to find any people that will admit to supporting him, but by allowing him to continue on the path he is setting for this country they are. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Click to expand...
I support our soldiers and a free, democratic Iraq...Bush lost my support years ago, although because I am conservative, I do find myself on the same side of the fence as the Republican Party on some issues...but being conservative does not necessarily make me a Bush fanatic or a NeoCon.

You want an exit strategy...here is my exit strategy...the United States appeals before the United Nations and essentially begs forgiveness for its foreign policy blunder...we do point out the merits of removing Saddam Hussein from power, and request UN involvement in stabilizing Iraq...we open the doors such that foreign nations have an opportunity to get involved and invest in Iraq's future, thereby eliminating the perception of America being their for its own selfish economic intentions...we push to ensure that regional Islamic nations participate significantly in the rebuilding and stabilization effort such that the UN force has an Islamic face...we redirect our focus, attention and efforts to destroying the remaining elements of Al Quaida and capturing Osama.



 
Originally posted by: Starbuck1975
To me your answers all conflict with each other and your only solution is to "stay the course".
Click to expand...
No my response was that jumping ship is not an option...as you pointed out, we require an exit strategy that will facilitate stability...otherwise, leaving prematurely will ultimately destabilize the region and perhaps require American involvement at some point in the future.
Click to expand...

I wonder how many American boys died while Nixon was getting us out "honorably" from Vietnam? Did their deaths accomplish anything?

You provide no justifacation for the war except that the end justifies the means. I think that in your heart, you know that's wrong.
Click to expand...
No, I said that for war in general, sometimes a nation, or individual soldiers, must make what would be considered morally unethical decisions if the endstate ultimately provides for the greater good and the saving of innocent lives...hence my reference to the atomic solution for Japan and firebombing for Germany during WW2.[/quote]
The problem with argument is that we didn't start WWII so we were morally jusitifed in doing what had to be done to finish the war with the least cost in American lives. Remember, it was a declared war.

You have no idea of what time limit we should give the Iraqis to organize themselves and carry on theirfight.
Click to expand...
Because you cannot place a time limit on military operations...we made that mistake during Vietnam, and the North Vietnamese exploited it...you win wars by setting strategic objectives and accomplishing those objectives...military strategy is not subject to time limits, but you do reach a point where the costs outweigh the perceived benefits.[/quote]

LOL, when it comes to Vietnam you have no idea of what your talking about. How long were we involved in Vietnam before we got tired of it? Vietnam had a stable democracy and it still didn't last. The same thing is happening in Iraq. You would think we would be smart enough not to let that happen again. Iraq is oil rich, let them hire their own mercenaires to handle the ionsurgents and pay for their own war.

We beat the USSR without going to war and I have no doubt that we can tame the Middle East without going to war. Instead you support a President that seems hell bent to make as much trouble in the world as he can.
Click to expand...
True, but the wars on the periphery that America and the USSR supported have made the mess that set the stage for Afghanistan and Iraq...every foreign policy decision has ripples, and decisions made during the Cold War set the groundwork for the current wars in the Middle East.[/quote]

I don't see your point. What has that to do with the fact we didn't go to war with USSR? The USSR went broke and the sattelite countires are democracies now. It all happened thru economics, not war.

I'm sure you will say you don't like Bush. It seems to be getting hard to find any people that will admit to supporting him, but by allowing him to continue on the path he is setting for this country they are. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Click to expand...
I support our soldiers and a free, democratic Iraq...Bush lost my support years ago, although because I am conservative, I do find myself on the same side of the fence as the Republican Party on some issues...but being conservative does not necessarily make me a Bush fanatic or a NeoCon.[/quote]

There you go again with the free democratic Iraq drivel. We could care less if they were free, that's just NeoCon drivel to make people think we have the high moral ground. You say we don't need to have that and that the end justifies the means, yet you keep coming back to a "free, democratic Iraq". Your answeres conflict.

You want an exit strategy...here is my exit strategy...the United States appeals before the United Nations and essentially begs forgiveness for its foreign policy blunder...we do point out the merits of removing Saddam Hussein from power, and request UN involvement in stabilizing Iraq...we open the doors such that foreign nations have an opportunity to get involved and invest in Iraq's future, thereby eliminating the perception of America being their for its own selfish economic intentions...we push to ensure that regional Islamic nations participate significantly in the rebuilding and stabilization effort such that the UN force has an Islamic face...we redirect our focus, attention and efforts to destroying the remaining elements of Al Quaida and capturing Osama.
Click to expand...

Good idea, but it will never happen, at least not in the forseeable future. Maybe in 50 years we can slowly put the economic squeeze on them. To do that we need to start developing alternate sources of energy. As long as they have all that oil money the Mid-East will continue to be a hot spot.

Bush says he's not concerned about Osama, so we're not puting much effort into catching him. Go figure. I think if captured Osama, we could leave and the UN would be happy and willing help us get out, we wouldn't have to beg them.



 
The problem with argument is that we didn't start WWII so we were morally jusitifed in doing what had to be done to finish the war with the least cost in American lives. Remember, it was a declared war.
Click to expand...
We didn't start the Vietnam War or the Korean War...American involvment in Korea was in response to Communist aggression, and we initially went into Vietnam to help out the French, and ultimately inhereted their war.

LOL, when it comes to Vietnam you have no idea of what your talking about.
Click to expand...
The problem with Vietnam was that our involvement there was in direct response to our foreign policy investment in the domino theory...in hindsight, and perhaps even within that era, the madness of the Cold War has become apparent...but during the Cold War, America either invested in or directly engaged numerous smaller wars that ultimately were extensions of the Cold War.

I don't see your point. What has that to do with the fact we didn't go to war with USSR? The USSR went broke and the sattelite countires are democracies now. It all happened thru economics, not war.
Click to expand...
Yes, but there were many wars on the periphery through which we fought the USSR...during the Korean War, our pilots faced Soviet pilots...in Vietnam, Soviet military advisors helped the North Vietnamese...the whole Cuba fiasco was due to America not wanting a Communist nation so close to its sphere of influence...America supported the Taliban during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.

The USSR crumbled partially due to the inevitable failure of communism, but also because America was willing and able to prevent Soviet expansion across Europe, Asia, the Middle East and South America.

There you go again with the free democratic Iraq drivel. We could care less if they were free, that's just NeoCon drivel to make people think we have the high moral ground.
Click to expand...
It has nothing to do with the high moral ground...it has everything to do with the fact that a free society ultimately fosters the creation of an educated middle class, one that tends to shift away from fundamentalism and ultimately embraces a more secular and worldly perspective...it is kind of hard to convince people to become suicide bombers when they have a well paying job, a vested stake in their government, and can provide a stable future for their families...to me, this is the only way to combat the ideology of Islamic fundamentalism.
 
Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

It has nothing to do with the high moral ground...it has everything to do with the fact that a free society ultimately fosters the creation of an educated middle class, one that tends to shift away from fundamentalism and ultimately embraces a more secular and worldly perspective...it is kind of hard to convince people to become suicide bombers when they have a well paying job, a vested stake in their government, and can provide a stable future for their families...to me, this is the only way to combat the ideology of Islamic fundamentalism.
Click to expand...

So we should support a welfare state for oil rich countries until they can provide decent jobs?? LMAO, are you going to give them your job to help them out?

How do you know why the sucide bombers do what they do, you are jumping to a rather big conclusion. It may be true for some of them, but certainly not all of them. You have to remember that they have the moral right to defend their area of the world. Where is our justification for invading Iraq? Don't give me the stable democray BS, there are literally hundreds of countries we could have helped out for a lot less money and no loss of life. You are living in a dream world.

We have money for an Iraqi dxemocracy, but not SS, etc. while at the same time they tell us we need to cut taxes on the rich?? The politcal pendulum has obviously swung way too far to the right when our ego's have gotten so big that we think we can invade other countries "for their own good". They are not our children for God's sake.

You have a rather slanted view IMO. You have tried to make the point that foreign policy desiocns have consequences, but you completely ignore the consequences and ripples we will suffer from taking it upon ourselves to invade a soverign country. Bush has made us all look like fools and we will be paying for his mistakes for a long time to come.


 
How do you know why the sucide bombers do what they do, you are jumping to a rather big conclusion. It may be true for some of them, but certainly not all of them.
Click to expand...
I do know that we never had to contend with suicide bombers in Bosnia or Kosovo...in both cases, we were contending with significant Muslim populations that did not trust us...in the case of Kosovo, the Kosovo Liberation Army was receiving help from jihad extremists filtering in from places like Syria and Iran...by quickly establishing security and building trust with local Kosovar leaders, we were able to develop a relationship with local factions and even extremist groups such that they had a vested interest in NOT engaging in suicide attacks against us.

So we should support a welfare state for oil rich countries until they can provide decent jobs?? LMAO, are you going to give them your job to help them out?
Click to expand...
You have tried to make the point that foreign policy desiocns have consequences, but you completely ignore the consequences and ripples we will suffer from taking it upon ourselves to invade a soverign country. Bush has made us all look like fools and we will be paying for his mistakes for a long time to come.
Click to expand...
You are still working from the assumption that I supported Bush's reasoning for us to invade Iraq, which I did not...as I have said, I believe that there were justifications for removing Saddam...I also believe however that any effort to remove Iraq should have been a joint military and diplomatic solution, with the support of both our allies and the international community.
My argument is not that we should have gone into Iraq...it is more of a concern that we cannot prematurely depart Iraq now that we have stirred up this hornets nest. Forget for a moment that you are against this war, and consider the ripples if we were to simply abandon Iraq before stabilizing it.


 
I've already considered the ripples of leaving ASAP and the ripples of staying. I think we are better off getting out of there ASAP.

My main reason being that I don't believe we can set up a stable democracy there unless we are willing to stay far an EXTENDED period of time. That would be through several presedencies and then it still may not work.

As I've stated before, the reason I beleive that is there is just too much money to be made from the oil in that part of the world. Even democracies are going to fight over it. Why do you think we are REALLY there in the first place?
 
going backwards a bit...

just a counter point for those people who say that it is reason enough to not sign up because you are a good X and should do X instead:

what about the people training to be X or are practicing X's but are called off to serve in the army or reserves? according to the logic presented above these people, despite signing their lives away to the armed forces, would be better off not going and staying to teach, make music, fix cars, build houses, or trade stocks.

somehow i feel that most of you would disagree with this. thus saying your reason to not serve is based soley on the fact you are better at something else, or you are training to be something else, is no good.
 
Hollow military, yet no call to duty
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/5/23/24228/2436
We know that recruitment is at crisis levels. We know that deaths and injuries are depleting our ranks. We know that at least 5,000 soldiers have deserted.
And the bad news keeps on coming.
Last year, Army lieutenants and captains left the service at an annual rate of 8.7% -- the highest since 2001. Pentagon officials say they expect the attrition rate to improve slightly this year. Yet interviews with several dozen military officers revealed an undercurrent of discontent within the Army's young officer corps that the Pentagon's statistics do not yet capture.

Young captains in the Army are looking ahead to repeated combat tours, years away from their families and a global war that their commanders tell them could last for decades. Like other college grads in their mid-20s, they are making decisions about what to do with their lives.

And many officers, who until recently had planned to pursue careers in the military, are deciding that it's a future they can't sign up for.
Click to expand...
There's a word for what's happening to our military: "hollow army". We experienced it after Vietnam, and Bush is busy recreating that experience.
Click to expand...
 
I'm going to try to give an honest answer to the original question, despite the fact that it has some pretty ridiculous rhetoric.
I voted for Bush, but that was primarily because of non-war issues. It wasn't a 1 issue election for me.
But, I'm supposed to be a "hardcore Republican" in my response, who is supposed to tell you why I'm not in the Army. The reason that I'm not in the Army is that I'm a total clutz. Last week I walked into tree limb. My forehead bled for an hour. I wasn't distracted by something else, I wasn't trying to read and walk at the same time, I wasn't even talking on my cell phone. I was just walking, and WHACK.

Now, I'm not sure our boys in the Army really want me next to them, with a loaded gun in my hand, with their lives hanging in the balance. I'm pretty sure I'd be more of a hindrance than a help. I'm physically weak, uncoordinated, and have slow reactions.

Also, I spent four years getting a technical degree, and am going to graduate school to do energy research, which will hopefully lessen our dependence on foreign energy and raise the average standard of living in the world. My hope is that a higher standard of living in foreign countries will lead to fewer suicide bombers. Economics and common sense tells me that's a reasonable hope, but I could just be dreaming.

Is it selfish of me to live a relatively sheltered existence? Yes. Does it make more sense for society for me to drop what I'm doing and go into the Army? No. The federal government has put money into my education, as well as money into the research laboratory I will be doing my graduate work at. If I decide to cancel my plans, the money that is set aside for me doesn't go to someone else, it just disapears into the general budget. It doesn't make sense for that money to go unapplied because my sense of integrity has been threatened by someone on the PN forum.

Lastly, as a quick stab, by your logic, everyone who was voted for Kerry because they thought he would give universal health care should be trolling poor neighborhoods, offering to write checks to those who need money for medical treatments. Any universal health care proponents in here who have taken the side of the OP done that recently?
 
I supported Bush in the last election. For reasons that aren't my fault (genetic), and that can't be changed (aka not out of shape or anything), and frankly reasons I'd rather not discuss on a public forum, I've found out I cannot be part of the Army. That said, I've tried to do my best to donate money to Veterans groups, and help with some of the "send stuff to our troops" projects.

Were I able to join the army, I can't say with 100% certainty that I would, and I know I'd face resistance from my parents, but I'd definitely strongly consider it.

That said, even as a Republican, I am worried about a draft. I feel it's an affront (sp) to civil liberties and amounts to indentured servitude. Short of an actual land invasion of America (the snowball in hell), I don't think there's any appropriate reason to have a draft.

Frankly, I think it's important to support the military even if you question their civilian leader. Was what we did in Kosovo neccesarily right? What about our Cruise Missiles at Aspirin factories? I may not have loved Clinton, but I still think the military and the war are separate issues.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top