Quote:
Originally posted by HelloKitty22
Furthermore, everyone seems to be avoiding the point of the mother's protest. Why aren't the children of members of congress serving in this war? Why aren't Mr. and Mrs. Bush sending their daughters to serve in the military? The political leaders of this country spend a tremendous amount of time telling us how important the war is and how we must sacrifice both financially and emotionally to send our sons and daughters oversees to win this war, yet only one member of Congress has made the ultimate sacrifice and sent a child to Iraq. If this war is so important to our safety and our survival as a nation, why aren't George and Laura sending Jenna and Barbara over there to fight??
|
STOP! hammer time!
No, seriously, STOP! Ease off it sister, because you're completely out of line here. While SIATS (shit in a tee-shirt, for those of you who didn't know) Mikey Moore wants you to believe that congressional children are somehow exempted or prevented from serving in the military, the raw numbers for military service are HIGHER among elected officials (compared w/ national averages), and EXACTLY THE SAME for their children.
The reason why moore gave a number, rather than a percentage then comparing that to the nat'l avg? Because the number sounds low, but the number of people serving in the military is sparse compared to the number of people in the nation in total.
And as for why the Bush twins aren't enlisted . . . jesus, what a weak argument. They're college-aged women; do you want me to pull out the figures for how few college-aged, college-enrolled women are enlisted into the service? Do you want to discuss how far from infantry duty they would be required to serve? Or maybe how infinitely different their service duty would be than the woman's son who died?
It's a strawman, and you know it. There is no argument to be found in "why aren't congressional children in combat!??!??!??1"