I think it's pretty obvious that the country she's talking about is Iraq, not the US.
Which just puts her in agreement with 32% of the people on this thread:
http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=177409
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Quote
- Thread starter 4thHorseman
- Start date
Which just puts her in agreement with 32% of the people on this thread:
http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=177409
No, it's a propaganda slogan designed to provoke emotions rather than a valid debating point.
And I repeat - no matter what the Bush daughters did, it still wouldn't satisfy the Bush-haters. From Special Forces commandos to doctors devoted to caring for wounded, there's not one thing they could do to change even a single anti-war mind to pro-war.
You are correct. I don't agree on the propaganda part, but the rest of your statements are correct.
Have the Bush daughthers performed any services for this country? They may well have and I didn't notice.
They are college students as far as I know. And what services are you thinking of forcing them to do?Have the Bush daughthers performed any services for this country?
Funny, I don't recall anyone talking about drafting Chelsea Clinton for the war in Bosnia or Somalia, or forcing her into some kind of national service against her will. Guess different rules are applicable here.
They are college students as far as I know. And what services are you thinking of forcing them to do?
My "crude" attempt at being fair, asking if maybe they had actually done something for this country instead of simply assuming they have not. Perhaps I had been unfair to them and they have done some public service?
Either way, you are 100% correct. They should not be forced or coerced into doing anything that any other American citizen should not be coerced or forced into.
"From Special Forces commandos to doctors devoted to caring for wounded, there's not one thing they could do to change even a single anti-war mind to pro-war."
I am having a difficult time parsing this statement, but one thing I know for certain is that of the commandos and docs I know the bulk of them are "antiwar". I have'nt met one professional soldier who is "pro-war"
I am also one of those people who believe that some form of public service should be mandatory - military, civil, something to help others.
I am having a difficult time parsing this statement, but one thing I know for certain is that of the commandos and docs I know the bulk of them are "antiwar". I have'nt met one professional soldier who is "pro-war"
I am also one of those people who believe that some form of public service should be mandatory - military, civil, something to help others.
I mean to recognizing that the war in Iraq is necessary and just.I am having a difficult time parsing this statement
A valid opinion. However, it should apply to everyone, regardless of who their parents are.I am also one of those people who believe that some form of public service should be mandatory - military, civil, something to help others.
Our President
The President or any other Daddy cannot force his daughters, sons, or grandchildren into the Army. Never has, never will.
Ex-President T. Roosevelt's son Quinton (spell?) was killed in WWI I believe.
The first amendment which Americans have stretched so thin an elephant could pass through allows any dingbat, hippy, or rabble rousting protester to agitate and aggravate to no end against the peace and dignity of ourselves and our Republic.
The President or any other Daddy cannot force his daughters, sons, or grandchildren into the Army. Never has, never will.
Ex-President T. Roosevelt's son Quinton (spell?) was killed in WWI I believe.
The first amendment which Americans have stretched so thin an elephant could pass through allows any dingbat, hippy, or rabble rousting protester to agitate and aggravate to no end against the peace and dignity of ourselves and our Republic.
Teddy Roosevelt sent several Sons off to fight WW1, one son, Quentin, an aviator, was Killed.
Another son, Ted Jr, fought in both WW1 and WW2 and died shortly after D day after leading the 4th Division over Utah beach. He was wounded in WW1 as a Battalion commander and walked with a limp.
He served as Asst Div Commander of the First Division and later the Fourth Division.
He was awarded the MOH for his actions at D day.
Another of T R 's sons, Kermit IIRC, fought WW1 in Iraq!
T R SR was awarded the MOH for his actions in Cuba in 2001.
Another son, Ted Jr, fought in both WW1 and WW2 and died shortly after D day after leading the 4th Division over Utah beach. He was wounded in WW1 as a Battalion commander and walked with a limp.
He served as Asst Div Commander of the First Division and later the Fourth Division.
He was awarded the MOH for his actions at D day.
Another of T R 's sons, Kermit IIRC, fought WW1 in Iraq!
T R SR was awarded the MOH for his actions in Cuba in 2001.
woodbridge
New member
Sons of the "priviliged"
Well, we all know that the current president flew jet fighters as a hobby in the ANG. There was nothing to have prevented him from going into the regular Air Force and volunteering to fly F4s over North Vietnam. And our Vice President Cheney had "other priorities" than to serve in Vietnam.
I wish I had been a Senator's son when I received my draft notice in 1967. It looks like being a chicken hawk is the first step to learning how to be rich and powerful.
Well, we all know that the current president flew jet fighters as a hobby in the ANG. There was nothing to have prevented him from going into the regular Air Force and volunteering to fly F4s over North Vietnam. And our Vice President Cheney had "other priorities" than to serve in Vietnam.
I wish I had been a Senator's son when I received my draft notice in 1967. It looks like being a chicken hawk is the first step to learning how to be rich and powerful.
I joined the Army in 1971, on August 18 to be exact. Two months out of high school. I went in infantry and got sent to Alaska and ended up there being a clerk. I put in papers for Vietnam every couple of weeks and my CO kept tearing them up every couple of weeks. I believed the Vietnam war was a righteous war. I believed the domino theory 100%. The war ended and I was sent to Fort Hood, and when my tour was up I left.
The Army in those days was an undisciplined lousy mess. I didn't know it at the time though, I just knew that the war was over and I didn't want to be in the Army any more.
It wasn't until at least 10 years later that I really began to doubt why we had been there, doubt the rightesousness of that war. Slowly but surely I came to believe that it was a stupid fiasco that cost too many lives for absolutely nothing at all. A few years ago I bought a pair of tennis shoes for my daughter and after buying them saw the tag inside that said - made in Vietnam. I mentioned it to my Dad who served in WWII, Korea and Vietnam. He gently reminded me that Mitsubishi used to make Japanes fighter planes and are now popular cars. Lesson is that wars are temporary, and may be fought for no reason at all. Some wars are righteous, and others aren't.
I have been bit once, and have been very suspicious ever since about sending troops into harms way - I have seen one that I have believed in since Vietnam, and that is Afghanistan. Unfortunately Afghanistan was caused by Desert Storm which I opposed. So it is a tainted support.
My oldest brother served in the Air Force, my older brother served in the Navy while I was in the Army. We are a proud military family. We have served, we have given, and my Father served in three wars. I tried as hard as I could to serve in my war. For several years I was bitter that I was kept out of my war. I have learned better.
Any president who wants to send our troops into harms way is immediately suspect in my eyes, until he proves a righteous cause. Bush got one right and one very wrong. So far.
All I see of Bush on Iraq is a family vendetta gone bad, and floundering leadership.
The Army in those days was an undisciplined lousy mess. I didn't know it at the time though, I just knew that the war was over and I didn't want to be in the Army any more.
It wasn't until at least 10 years later that I really began to doubt why we had been there, doubt the rightesousness of that war. Slowly but surely I came to believe that it was a stupid fiasco that cost too many lives for absolutely nothing at all. A few years ago I bought a pair of tennis shoes for my daughter and after buying them saw the tag inside that said - made in Vietnam. I mentioned it to my Dad who served in WWII, Korea and Vietnam. He gently reminded me that Mitsubishi used to make Japanes fighter planes and are now popular cars. Lesson is that wars are temporary, and may be fought for no reason at all. Some wars are righteous, and others aren't.
I have been bit once, and have been very suspicious ever since about sending troops into harms way - I have seen one that I have believed in since Vietnam, and that is Afghanistan. Unfortunately Afghanistan was caused by Desert Storm which I opposed. So it is a tainted support.
My oldest brother served in the Air Force, my older brother served in the Navy while I was in the Army. We are a proud military family. We have served, we have given, and my Father served in three wars. I tried as hard as I could to serve in my war. For several years I was bitter that I was kept out of my war. I have learned better.
Any president who wants to send our troops into harms way is immediately suspect in my eyes, until he proves a righteous cause. Bush got one right and one very wrong. So far.
All I see of Bush on Iraq is a family vendetta gone bad, and floundering leadership.
Bush did volunteered to fly in Vietnam, but was turned down because the type of jet he flew wasn't designed for ground support.There was nothing to have prevented him from going into the regular Air Force and volunteering to fly F4s over North Vietnam.
Unlike our good friend Bill Clinton, who resigned from ROTC specifically to dodge Vietnam service, instead he went overseas to "protest" the war. Funny how those calling Bush a "chickenhawk" never seemed to have a problem with old Bill's draft dodging.
woodbridge
New member
Bush chickenhawk
Bush did volunteered to fly in Vietnam, but was turned down because the type of jet he flew wasn't designed for ground support.
Right, because he was a FANG, flying warplanes for a hobby. As I said initially, he could have volunteered for the Regular Air Force. And there was nothing to have prevented him from transfering from the FANG to the Air Force. If he wanted to go to Vietnam, his Daddy could have arranged it. But it would have got in the way of working on his daddy's friends political campaign in Alabama.
PS.- I wanted to see Clinton impeached. His refusal to serve does not excuse Bush or Cheney.
Bush did volunteered to fly in Vietnam, but was turned down because the type of jet he flew wasn't designed for ground support.
Right, because he was a FANG, flying warplanes for a hobby. As I said initially, he could have volunteered for the Regular Air Force. And there was nothing to have prevented him from transfering from the FANG to the Air Force. If he wanted to go to Vietnam, his Daddy could have arranged it. But it would have got in the way of working on his daddy's friends political campaign in Alabama.
PS.- I wanted to see Clinton impeached. His refusal to serve does not excuse Bush or Cheney.
I find your attitude towards those who served honorably in the Guard disturbing.Right, because he was a FANG, flying warplanes for a hobby.
Those who didn't go to Vietnam served an important, no, vital service in deterring the Soviets from attacking the West. Vietnam was always a sideshow, and vast numbers of service people stood on the inter-German border and throughout the world to deter the Red Army and the Warsaw pact. Bush's unit, in the advent of a European war, would certainly have been sent over, and his chances of survival would have been mighty small indeed.
To disparage a man who served honorably and well in service to America is insulting, not just to Bush but to anyone who served in the Natinal Guard or Reserves.
http://www.hillnews.com/york/090904.aspx
woodbridge
New member
Sideshow
57,000 Americans died in the "side show". You disparage their memories by reducing their service to a novelty act. And does Cheney continue to get a pass?
Please note that I am not disparaging Guards or Reserves. My remarks are directed at the "thread" - combat service by the children of the rich and powerful. Vietnam was a hot war. Bush could have chosen to serve "in country". Even Kerry, whose subsequent career I can not say I admire, served in combat.
Your analogy to the situation in Europe doesn't go far enough. In a conflict with Russia, we most likely would have had a nuclear war. That means that even the hippies in Haight Ashbury would have been fried. The hypothetical danger Bush faced was still not combat - by his choice. And service in a hot war is the topic of this thread.
Interestingly enough, the current administration is also treating Iraq as a sideshow for purposes of determining how much healthcare the VA will be called upon to give Gulf veterans. I attended an open forum here in Los Angeles in which the VA CARES study was discussed. The VA commissioned a study that concluded that Iraq is a "skirmish" and will not produce much need for VA care for veterans. This study will be used by Pricewaterhouse Coopers which has been engaged to determine if the land on which the VA hospital sits is "excess" and eligible to be sold off or commercially developed. Given the premise the VA has already officially adopted, it is a foregone conclusion that Pricewaterhouse Coopers will conclude that the facility is underutilized and should be sold off. The books are already cooked and veterans will get screwed again.
This land was given to the VA by two citizens after the Civil War to be used exclusively for Veterans "in perpetuity." Look at the 20 year struggle Vietnam vets faced to get care for Agent Orange illnesses. Look at the continued road blocks the VA is placing in front of Gulf War I veterans trying to get care. Now look at the land grab this administration is supporting.
The first thing every GI learns is not to trust the brass or the politicians. Especially those politicians who don't have the brass to serve - like Cheney, the power behind the throne.
57,000 Americans died in the "side show". You disparage their memories by reducing their service to a novelty act. And does Cheney continue to get a pass?
Please note that I am not disparaging Guards or Reserves. My remarks are directed at the "thread" - combat service by the children of the rich and powerful. Vietnam was a hot war. Bush could have chosen to serve "in country". Even Kerry, whose subsequent career I can not say I admire, served in combat.
Your analogy to the situation in Europe doesn't go far enough. In a conflict with Russia, we most likely would have had a nuclear war. That means that even the hippies in Haight Ashbury would have been fried. The hypothetical danger Bush faced was still not combat - by his choice. And service in a hot war is the topic of this thread.
Interestingly enough, the current administration is also treating Iraq as a sideshow for purposes of determining how much healthcare the VA will be called upon to give Gulf veterans. I attended an open forum here in Los Angeles in which the VA CARES study was discussed. The VA commissioned a study that concluded that Iraq is a "skirmish" and will not produce much need for VA care for veterans. This study will be used by Pricewaterhouse Coopers which has been engaged to determine if the land on which the VA hospital sits is "excess" and eligible to be sold off or commercially developed. Given the premise the VA has already officially adopted, it is a foregone conclusion that Pricewaterhouse Coopers will conclude that the facility is underutilized and should be sold off. The books are already cooked and veterans will get screwed again.
This land was given to the VA by two citizens after the Civil War to be used exclusively for Veterans "in perpetuity." Look at the 20 year struggle Vietnam vets faced to get care for Agent Orange illnesses. Look at the continued road blocks the VA is placing in front of Gulf War I veterans trying to get care. Now look at the land grab this administration is supporting.
The first thing every GI learns is not to trust the brass or the politicians. Especially those politicians who don't have the brass to serve - like Cheney, the power behind the throne.
Last edited:
I did no such thing. The war in Vietnam posed no direct threat to the USA. The Soviets did. The Soviets needed to be deterred, that was the primary focus of American policy. The Guard was part of that deterrent. I don't buy that Soviet aggression into Europe would have necessarily lead to nuclear war, but without a strong deterrent, things would have gotten ugly. And in any case, his unit would have to either go to Europe, where he'd almost certainly would have died, or protect CONUSA from Soviet bombers, a pretty important job.You disparage their memories by reducing their service to a novelty act.
Calling people who served their country honorably "chickenhawks" is indeed a disparaging comment.Please note that I am not disparaging Guards or Reserves.
Maybe, but he wanted to be a pilot, and the air force had plenty of pilots, it's unlikely he would have gotten to be one except by joining the ANG. It's been well documented that his father had no influence in him getting that slot, and that he was a very good fighter pilot. And flying military jets is not a "hobby", it's a dangerous job.Bush could have chosen to serve "in country".
This whole left-wing attack on Bush's military record has been going on since the man was running for Governor, you'd think that they'd have given up on it, especially after the forged CBS documents. The man never claimed he was a hero, put himself in for medals he didn't deserve, or brag about being somewhere he wasn't. He joined the ANG, flew jets, and did his time with honor. End of story.
It's a bit confusing, but she said "this" in a possessive way, meaning the US, rather than "that", which would have made more sense if referring to Iraq:Was Sheehan speaking of the United States - or Iraq?
"That country is not worth dying for" would have certainly meant Iraq.
4thHorseman
New member
It's a bit confusing, but she said "this" in a possessive way, meaning the US, rather than "that", which would have made more sense if referring to Iraq:
"That country is not worth dying for" would have certainly meant Iraq.
I totally agree.