Oh, would you now? This Iraq invasion was supposed to be about defending our OWN FREEDOM from the forces of terrorism, remember? So, why aren't you in Iraq?
for the zillionth time, you can favor something without doing it. i dunno why you cannot understand that. if there were no cops and crime was rampant, i would have to get a gun and defend myself. as it stands there are cops, i dont really have to. these cops are paid to provide a service that i am in favor of. see how that works? also there are guys called "soldiers" who have volunteered to fight with the tax money i pay them. if they really need me bad they can draft me and i will go. i am sure most of us here would be proud to go if we were drafted. listen closely now. i can favor something being done, and not do it myself. for instance, there are lifeguards at the beach, and i am glad they are there, and yet i am not a lifeguard. i am in favor of lifeguards and what they do, even though i am not a lifeguard myself. get it? (also, if you hadnt taken me out of context, you would notice i was talking about what i would do if we did not live in a free country, but under a dictator.)
Forget that argument for now... I demonstrated the speciousness of it WEEKS AGO.... You didn't answer the question... You just said you would join people in defending your freedom. So why aren't you defending our freedom NOW by serving in Iraq? This war was supposed to be about that very thing: defending our freedom against terrorism. Why isn't your butt where your mouth is? I'm not interested in your phony argument about how you can support one thing and do another... I'm asking you why you're not in Iraq RIGHT NOW, since you just said you would join in in defending your freedom.
i edited my previous post and addressed how you were misrepresenting what i said already before you posted this but again: we have a volunteer army. the word volunteer means you choose to do something. that means our soldiers are volunteers who have committed to fight as ordered by our leaders. it is a very honorable thing to do. if i was favoring a policy whereby we force people to join the military, i might be more vulnerable to your very stupid argument. like i said, if i favored a draft, i would go when drafted. and again, i said i would never live under a dictatorship, i would prefer to start killing leaders. i can repeat this a few more times if needed.
Oh, so you would join in with those who would kill dictators to defend your freedom, but you choose not to join in with those who would kill terrorists to defend your freedom. That's a mighty convenient policy you got there... pretty cheap talk for somebody who sits here under no dictator, and avoids actual action where the stated premise was to defend our freedom.
yes, i am a coward in the same sense that you are a coward for favoring the operations of police officers while not actually being a police officer.
I readily admit I leave police work to people with more balls than I have. I didn't make any cheap, hypocritical bravado political statements. Unlike soldiers in Iraq, those policemen can quit any time they like. Unlike soldiers for Iraq, there is no shortfall of police recruits. Unlike Iraq, policemen weren't lied to about their mission. Unlike Iraq, the mission of policemen won't be totally wasted if we're staffed at 90% of ideal. Understaffing a war, on the other hand, is a recipe for disaster, and a probable waste of the lives spent there. You say the Iraq mission is critical to our freedom. If so, we can't afford the risk of 90% staffing. I can live, however, with a 10% rise in crime if I can't afford it.
Rex, what do you know about military staffing? You are making blanket remarks about something you have zero knowledge about. Most of this crap is stuff you read on other forums anyway. At least you acknowledged the fact that you have no balls. The number of troops in theater in Iraq has nothing to do with the recruiting woes of one month for the army. Now be a good boy and go to that other stomping ground of yours and find a response.