Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Bill O'Rights
With 100 senators, 435 House members and...oh, I dunno...maybe 200 or so, plus or minus, within the Bush administration...how many currently have sons or daughters serving in the military?
And of those who do, how many of them are serving in Iraq? Of those serving in Iraq, should there be any, how many are serving in the Green Zone? Finally, of those serving in Iraq, how many are serving in combat outside the Green Zone?
Seriously. Anyone? I really want to know. I somehow can't help but feel that if more of these government officials had children who had been drafted to serve and fight in this conflict, things would have gone a bit differently.
I see an undermanned military being led by those that have never served. Or, if they did, it was from the confines of a plush clear zone. Not only that...but I see these same "Chicken Hawks" castigating decorated combat veterans over their lack of "patriotism" for daring to speak up in criticism of the war. Excuse me? Is this a bad Twilight Zone episode?
|
Bill let me get this straight. Its ok to bitch, whine, and moan about any military action if you haven't served but its not ok to support one if you haven't? Is the requirement for advocating military action having a loved one in the line of fire? This is a ridiculous line of reasoning, especially with a volunteer military.
But I think we should extrapolate it further.
Since a majority by number, and % of population of combat troops are white males (white males are a disproportionate % of the combat troops based on race) only white males should have any say on Iraq policy?
Or maybe....
Since the top 25% income earners pay 84% of the federal taxes, perhaps they should have all the say in how its spent. Hey even better lets do it proportionately, the more tax you pay the more you get to decide government policy.
The line of reasoning that you have to have someone you love in combat directly in order to show support is not meant in any sort of fairness by the left, its just a way to stifle debate.