Bush children not serving in military gives aid and comfort to the enemy

Knowing the ruling class in America is not going to demand that their children sacrfice for their country, informs the the enemy that Bush's
barking (or baying if you prefer) is political rhetoric and not deep seated conviction.

This is not a war the ruling class going to allow their children to fight. The enemy knows this. And therefore they know all they have to do is wait it out until it becomes obvious to the American people that Bush and his crowd are asking nothing of their children in regards to the war. When, why should my children die and not yours? becomes the question, the war will be unsustainable.

He has a 17yo son, and he has said in the past that he thinks the military would be good for him, 'except there is a war going on'.

Well, he started in last night about the war in Iraq etc., and I had had just enough to drink to completely disembowel him. I said his thinking was incredibly hypocritical. Why is it okay for other people's children to die in this war, but not yours?

Don't leave us hanging like that.

He really didn't say anything. I think that my friends sort of set me up to duke it out with this guy....and when I was done with him, he stated, "you might be right".

I posted a thread about it earlier this morning.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=5341549&mesg_id=5341549

I mean if he was sober enough to have one.

I am sick to death of these new promos for the armed forces showing kids trying to convince their parents to allow them to volunteer for the army. Either have a draft and make it fair or stop advertising!

My freeper neighbor had a pro war sign anti democrat a while back and he has two kids about seven and thirteen. I told him that if they dont enlist then that makes him a hypocrite. The sign came down really quickly the next morning. Hmm should I mention that his kids are going to be paying for his war.

Think about the morale benefits of having a couple of sparty girls like those two associated with your, um, unit.

they could be a real asset. Maybe in the infirmary? Those guys love a nice set, no matter who they are attached to.

I don't want my children there and we actively work to let kids know they don't have to participate in this god-awful horror. Those girls have a choice just like my son and daughter, regardless of the psychopathology of their father. Class distinctions aside, the point is that this war should not even have happened and both sides of the political spectrum bear responsibity, either for actively supporting it or passively allowing it to happen. I'd like to think we are more mature than to expect them to do something we don't want for ourselves. Perhaps the people who need to go there and fight are the chickenhawks themselves--* and Cheney, Rumsfeld, Scotty, Hadley, Condi, the list goes on. Personally, rather than go to war, I've always thought we should have stuck * in a cage with Saddam, and the one who could walk out would be declared the winner. Everyone could go home afterwards to their favorite meal and a good movie.

but Bush was too chicken.

I think the argument is a good one. If the ruling class knew they would have to make sacrifices (Condi told us all yesterday that 'we have to make sacrifices, remember?) I doubt this country would be so quick to go go war unless it was absolutely necessary.

This is not a monarchy. If Condy is asking US to make sacrifices, then she needs to be talking about everyone. But of course she's not, and that's not democratic.

Colin Powell said in his autobiography that there never should be a war like Vietnam again, where the privileged could opt out of a war. He said the next time the country went to war, if there was a draft, there should be no deferments.

I agree with that. If a war is just, most people would willingly fight in it. If it's a corporate war, as this one is, then those who benefit the most from it, Cheney, Bush, Rumsfeld, Condi et al, should most certainly be asked to sacrifice. Since they are too old, then the logical sacrifice they should be willing to make, is to at least try to persuade those closest to them, that the war is worth fighting.

The fact that not one of them has a loved at risk, is a powerful message to the rest of us, that they have not been able to convince even their own loved ones, that this war is worth fighting.

Therefore, it is a very good argument to make, imo. I saw Bush's nephew try to talk college students into signing up. He, of course, got no takers, since he himself was not rushing to go.

It's never a bad argument to point out the truth. The truth is this war is not worth fighting ~ which is why the children of the warmongers will remain safely at home, and will later inherit the ill-gotten gains of their parents.

Otoh, if one of them were to speak out against the war, that being a legitimate excuse for not signing up, explain why they won't go, and refuse to profit from it, then I would say they should not be asked the question, or expected to go. Just my cents.

The atristocracy in this country just wants to use the lower classes as cannon fodder for their corporations wishes. That's why the social welfare system was started in the first place; to have well-fed able-bodied men be available to sign their lives away while the children of the ruling elites agonized over what to wear to the cocktail party that night.

being a First Brat .....




Their lot in life is difficult enough already, having that asshole for a daddy.