Read the post by K Sig RC above where he addresses your inaccurate statements.
And again, people would go to war in the military. You are trying to make 2 issues into one. If this is an issue about who joins the military (read K Sig RC's post above) then it has nothing to do with us going to war and this mother's son dying. It seems that when someone knocks your argument you back off and make it into a different issue - here you're trying to make it into an issue of certain people going to join the army more.
-Rudey
Quote:
Originally posted by HelloKitty22
First, I did question why Kerry's daughters aren't serving. Kerry is a senator, which puts him under the heading of member of Congress. Maybe you should check your own level of jadedness...
Furthermore, I never said Bush killed this woman's son. In fact, nowhere in my comment did I mention anything about who killed him.
What I did say is that certain populations of people are paying a much smaller price for this war. You say that "in a military people volunteer to join," but should that always be true? I personally think that if people (politician and citizens) vote for a war they should have some "skin in the game," so to speak. Charlie Rangel called for a draft when they voted for the Iraq war, specifically because he knew his constituency (which is predominanty minority and often joins the military to get a job and/or obtain money for college) would be paying a disproportionate price for the war.
My point wasn't to specifically chastise a particular person for not going to war, but to raise a philisophical question about a system in which a few people who are insulated from the really painful effects of war are making the decision to go to war.
|