• 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.

Should Bush send his own children to iraq?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
What is it about the fact that his daughters are adults and don't need their father to "allow" them to do anything do you not understand?
 
Originally posted by: firefaux
ok, maybe if i said: should bush allow his own daughters to go fight in iraq (if they were to join?). does that sound better?
Click to expand...

Then you'd be talking about a hypothetical that doesn't matter.
 
Originally posted by: BoberFett
If Bush did send his daughters to Iraq, thereby putting his proverbial money where his mouth is, would he then be justified in pushing to reinstate the draft? After all, if he's willing to sacrifice his children then shouldn't the rest of that nation?
Click to expand...
No and no.

 
This is obviously an extremist thread. People like this are dangerous. They just aren't capable of rational thinking...

Here is a crazy idea...people should make their own decisions and that includes Bush's children. They should not be forced to do anything. And here is an even crazier idea - you don't have to go to extremes in every single one of your actions and opinions. I know it's shocking for the extremists to hear this, but you should open yourselves up to such an idea.
 
Personally I think that any time a leader wants to go to war he should kill himself publicly to show the seriousness of his intent.
 
Originally posted by: yllus
Originally posted by: DonVito
In all fairness, it's not as though President Bush is merely speaking out in favor of the war - he started it! I don't think, though, that that imposes any moral obligation for him to send his hard-partying daughters.
Click to expand...
I tend to think he merely finished it (though 'finished' may not be the most fitting word). Even so, President or not, I wouldn't expect any such action from him.
Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
I agree with all but the last. Everyone is sent in the military. You may join during time of conflict hoping to fight, but that isn't always the case. Likewise, people who have been called up after being out hardly foresaw being sent to Iraq. They just didn't jump up and say "Holy crap, I forgot to go to work in Iraq today!"
Click to expand...
I think you may have misunderstood what I said. What I mean is, they joined a volunteer military. I would imagine that it occurred to most of the people signing that contract that fighting, killing and dying might be part of the job description... though I also imagine that recruiters probably try to minimize any thoughts about those outcomes and that lots of people join to escape a bad situation at home, pay for their education or see the sights.
As far as Bush's daughters.. Well you can't pick your parents. They aren't the least bit obliged to answer for their father's actions. Now I would like to see Bush sent in not as pres but as PFC Bush and put on the line having to do what he was told. That would be rewarding to watch.
Click to expand...
You think? I tend to believe that running, winning and serving as the President of the United States are tasks not easily accomplished by a coward. The dude has guts, no matter what else you may wish to belittle about him.
Click to expand...

Why does Bush have to have guts? Stubborn for sure, but that isn't altogether a good thing. The bravest thing one must do is survive the media scrutiny when running. Is he a coward then? I don't know that either. He's not been tested in the face of physical danger.

Being shot at is another thing entirely from being President. Given a choice between being in the crosshairs of the press, or an AK, I'll pick the former, thanks.
 
Bush's children are adults, last I checked parents can't force their children to join the military.
 
Wouldn't doing this require a draft or something of that nature? 🙂
It would be a good PR stunt though if he wanted to institute a draft.
 
Originally posted by: RabidMongoose
This is obviously an extremist thread. People like this are dangerous. They just aren't capable of rational thinking...

Here is a crazy idea...people should make their own decisions and that includes Bush's children. They should not be forced to do anything. And here is an even crazier idea - you don't have to go to extremes in every single one of your actions and opinions. I know it's shocking for the extremists to hear this, but you should open yourselves up to such an idea.
Click to expand...


I agree. It's irrational to say that a supporter of this war should be able to back up his or her support by sending their children or themselves into harm's way. This is why I have the utmost respect for the ALL VOLUNTEER military which is fighting in Iraq.
 
A better troll thread would be:

"Are the Bush daughters un-patriotic traitors who hate America and don't support our troops?"

After all, a couple of other troll threads in P&N claim that it is our patriotic duty to support Bush and his policies unquestioningly, and that supporting our troops means agreeing with Bush's goals 100%.

If they were true patriots, they would already have enlisted by now, right?

Troll - uh, Try - harder next time!
 
Dumbya used his daddy's influence to avoid military service. Why shouldnt his children have the same privilege? Afterall, thats what privilege is all about. Abusing it. Right?
 
firefaux- You're not a troll, very good question, heart and mind is in the right place.. however like many say draft is a bad idea.

"Of all the statist violations of individual rights in a mixed economy, the military draft is the worst. It is an abrogation of rights.

"It negates man's fundamental right?the right to life?and establishes the fundamental principle of statism: that a man's life belongs to the state, and the state may claim it by compelling him to sacrifice it in battle. Once that principle is accepted, the rest is only a matter of time."
-- AYN RAND
Click to expand...

We don't need to go that far at all, it's staring you in the face...If these politicains can't even convince thier own family members who know, trust and love them to enlist how the hell's he gonna convince me that it's a noble effort? Think about that!

And while you're thinking about that, think about how not a single one of our federal representative's has been able to convince a single one of thier family members to go to iraq in a infantry batallion if it's such a "noble effort" such a "threat"😉 Oh yeah where do I sign..:roll:



Here's the real story in case you're wondering OP.

And in this war the elite are so callus they can't even be bothered to front the costs for thier investment!! Slashing upper end taxes and capital taxes and not adequitly providing armor for troops.. where, in iraq right now, troops are forced to make "hillbilly armor" with scap metal in junk yards make-shift/halfassed welded togeher to protect themselves from IED's. You sacrifice, not them. How's that halliburton stock doing? What's them CEO's being paid? better than ever thank you very much.

God Bless our troops!

 
Jesus, talk about missing the point. If you bother to use some reading comprehension you would see that firefaux was bringing up the question of personal responsibility, not the theory of voluntary service. I'll try to reword how i understand it so thicker ppl here can follow along: should Bush encourage his daughters to go fight the war? If he truely believes that the war is worth fighting for then he won't have a problem making himself personally involved in it.
 
Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Originally posted by: nick1985
this is an obvious troll thread
Click to expand...

That may be, but it raises the larger question of leaders being able to send others to do their dirtywork while they have no personal stake whatever. In days of old, leaders really fought. Now they have nothing to lose.
Click to expand...

It is called a communication devices. Once armies could lay telegraph wire, ride a horse, or use a radio. The heads of state seldom lead their armies into battle.

 
I'm sure this has alrady been posted but I'll say it anyway. Nobody sends their children into harms way. Our army is a volunteer force made up of legal adults. End of story. I don't know any parent who actively recruits their kid into the military. This is a decision that is made by the individual.

Get over it. Threads like this piss me off.
 
I would love to see them go, then come back dead. Bush even then will probably continue the war, that sick sadistic fsck.
 
Originally posted by: Xyclone
I would love to see them go, then come back dead. Bush even then will probably continue the war, that sick sadistic fsck.
Click to expand...

You'd love to see them go get killed, and Bush is a sick sadistic fvck?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top