It’s a Moral Imperative, Just Don’t Ask Me to Fight
Why is there a troop shortage? With so many Republicans saying that there is a “moral imperative” to fight in Iraq, why Republicans of fighting age not signing up in droves?
The reasons given by Young Republicans at their convention in Los Angeles are stupid and self-serving. Among them (via DKos):
“Frankly, I want to be a politician. I’d like to survive to see that. … [I would volunteer only if the United States faced a dire troop shortage or] if there’s another Sept. 11.”
If there’s a dire troop shortage? With recruiting for the military falling to all-time lows, tens of thousands of soldiers based around the world taken from their duties to fill in the ever-increasing void, the national guard strained to its limits, soldiers torn from family and losing jobs to be sent in for two or sometimes even three tours of duty, the back-door draft… and this young right-wing twit thinks that there’s no shortage? Either they’re too stupid to see the obvious or are just giving a charade of an excuse to chicken out while demanding others go in their place. Which is better?
And what’s this BS about “surviving to be a politician”? Is that why all the top Republicans are draft dodgers? They’re too chicken? What happened to the warrior statesman? What happened to ‘doing your part’? I guess they don’t like their chances well enough to risk doing their duty for their country for what they claim is a moral imperative. I don’t demand that someone has to have served in the military in order to be a politician, but I do demand that they remain consistent with their stated principles–and if they believe the war is necessary, if they consider it an imperative, and are of sound body and fighting age, then they are hypocrites not to go. And while hypocrisy sits well with hard-core right-wing Republicans, it doesn’t with most Americans.
“If there was a need presented, I would go.”
So I guess a dire troops shortage or a moral imperative is not a good enough “need.” But more than that:
“I physically probably couldn’t do a whole lot [in Iraq]. … I think I could do more here. … We don’t have to be there physically to fight it.”
And they call liberals elitists? “Oh, I am too good and talented to waste as cannon fodder. Let the underclass serve that purpose while I sit back at home and tell people what to do.” Swell.
The closest anyone else got to saying they’d volunteer was to admit being “torn” over the idea, and they would “consider” the possibility.
There are your “patriots” for you. I guess the word ‘sacrifice’ is not mentioned in the Republican creed.
I’m pretty sure that Republicans think they have poor people to serve in war. After all, as far as they’re concerned, they’re not good for much else except wasting their hard-earned tax dollars through living on welfare. :-p
To paraphrase Leona Helmsley: Fighting in the Army, thats for the little people.
The immorality of the Republican establishment is approaching the absurd.
They are all for wars, but insist that they are too important to be risked in battle. They are all for Christ, except they think that Governments role is to give to help the rich and hinder the poor. To tax work but not wealth, to undermine “the little peoples security, to enhance the rich.”
How long this can go on is not certain. But such gross moral reasoning has never withstood time.
Christ comes in handy for chastisement, but compassion is a private matter.
I think we could reduce the # of troops we have 25%, in all locations throughout the world, and it would not make much difference. I believe this to be the case even in Iraq, since much of the violence there is due to folks who are hidden, and adding firepower does not help when you don’t have a target.
Sad.