Answering Michael Moore
A number of bloggers have come up with excellent responses to Michael Moore’s question to Bill O’Reilly, “Would you sacrifice your son to secure Fallujah?” Here are three of my favorites:
“No parent makes that choice for their child. You can enlist in the army when you are 18 years old, an adult. An adult who makes his or her own choices….Asking me if I would sacrifice my own child is disengenous, Mr. Moore. Now if you were to ask me how I would feel if my grown child were to freely and of his own will enlist in the army during this war, I would tell you that I would be proud of him for wanting to serve his country, join the process of bringing peace and democracy to another land and combat terrorism….” –Michele Catalano
“[V]ery few people are going to be willing to send their child off to die for any reason at all. If every parent of an American soldier was guaranteed to lose their child in a war, the United States would never go, or have gone, to war for any reason.” –John Hawkins
“If a child of mine wished to pursue a career in the U.S. military, I should be proud. If he was then sent off to fight in a hot war, in which the USA had engaged under the proper conventional and constitutional procedures of this republic — under the command of the President, with the approval of the Congress — I would make no attempt to stop him. If he died in combat, I should grieve as a loving parent; but I would blame nobody. And if anyone tried to make political capital out of my child’s death, I would loathe that person.” –John Derbyshire
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Trackbacks
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Categories: Michael Moore
Mudville Gazette
» The five-year plan
NewsBusters.org
» Oprah To Do Primetime Christmas Special With The ObamasRiehl World View
» Dowd: Dem Elites Displeased With Obama As Palin RisesStop The ACLU
» SEALs Charged With Assault for Arresting Top TerroristGay Patriot
» The O So Hip ObamaLegal Insurrection
» Is "Finish the Job" the New "Peace With Honor"?Weekly Standard
» DVR Alert: Oprah, Obama, Primetime, ChristmasJustOneMinute
» Getting Ready For The Turkey
Surge- you state – “nd will you people decide what we went to Iraq for? First, Bush said Iraq presented an “imminent danger” with it’s WMD’s (based on faulty info which he latched onto immediately and didn’t bother to double check). The U.N. inspectors told him their were NO WMD’s.”
One, President Bush never used the word imminent. Bush said in the State of the Union address – “Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option.”
At what point would you start to worry if someone standing opposite you pulled out a gun and started to load it? When they pulled out the gun? When it was being loaded? When it was loaded and pointed at you? Or only after it was fired at you?
Then you claim the UN inspection group said there were no WMD. That is also untrue. Blix indicated that Iraq was not cooperating in the manner of UN 1441, and that it couldn’t ascertain that it had WMD or programs without more time to search. Yet, at the same time, Russian intelligence said Iraq had WMD, French intelligence said Iraq had WMD, British intelligence said Iraq had WMD, and US intelligence said Iraq had WMD. Even in the first reports post war by David Kay, he defined Iraq in material breach of UNSC1441 – with programs undisclosed and still continuing. Your premise of now WMD is based on the US not finding WalMart sized warehouse with neatly stacked and labeled materials saying WMD.
The rest of your claims are as intellectually dishonest as those. But then, never let something as trivial as facts get in the way of a good rant.
Why did the older Bush not finish Saddam before?
Because we were making lotsa money from him.
He was like a pitbull on leash threatening his oil rich neighbours. If there is a threat…there is demand…for fighter planes, tanks, bombs and we supplied most of those good stuff. In the 90’s, oil rich arabs like Kuwait, Saudi Arabia etc. bought hundreds of billions stacking up their armada of F16s and all the works.
The French, British arms suppliers also made a killing but we made most out of it.
After we’ve saturated the demand there was no more need for Saddam…it was personal (perhaps the oil) The little Bush wants to finish what his Dad started. That is why he is so eager go after Saddam…WMD or not, Al Qaeda link or not…let’s make it up.
Speaking as a Republican (teh best party ever!), I’d be more than willing to send my son, Gunther, Jr., to die in Iraq, but that’s mainly because the lazy little pansy doesn’t do his chores and I think that getting blown to bits might teach him a valuable lesson.
Now, I know that a lot of “Liberals” (or “Gays” as they prefer to be called) will tell you that Iraq had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks, but those are the same Pinkos who said that Iraq didn’t have WMD’s and I know for a fact that these will be found any day now. October at the latest.
These same “Intellectuals” just love to drone on-and -on about how the CIA prepared and provided the Ba’athists with lists of people who should be killed. But that’s just NOT true! The CIA prepared and provided the Ba’athists with lists of people who should be tortured and then killed. And talk about “PC” – these lists were progressive enough as to include pregnant women and the elderly. The best estimate is that approximately 5,000 people on the CIA-provided lists were killed during the Ba’athists rise to power. Many were tortured to death in front of their children. You’d think that would teach those Iraqis not to mess with the good ol’ USA (teh best country ever!), but – for some reason – many of ‘em still hold a grudge against us. I hope Gunther Jr. keeps that in mind the next time I tell him to mow the lawn!
Surge
It was our dependency on foreign oil that stopped us from taking him out in the Gulf war. The Opec nations did not want us to start “removing” arab leaders. So they let us run him out of Kuwait and destroy his war machine so he would be no threat to them, but would not allow us to remove him.
So for those who say this war is about oil, you’re fooling yourself. This in no way improves our position in regards to obtaining foreign oil. Period.
Bush said from day one, before we went into afghanistan, that this would be a long war unlike any other. It would not involve one man or one country but any place that harbors and supports terrorism. It was not just about catching Bin Ladin. And we needed a standing army right in the middle of the middle-east to start this thing off. The only way to do that is to invade someone. Saddam, by his human rights atrocities in the 80’s and 90’s, his refusal to cooperate with UN inspectors, his circumvention of UN sanctions through dirty deals with the criminals in France, Germany and Russia giving him the monetary capacity to rebuild his military and pursue WMD’s, Saddam brought it on himself.
And why does it matter what the premise is? The liberals seem to be off kilter on this to me. Teresa last night gave a long speech on how it is our “responsibility as Americans” to bring freedom to the world. To free all the women of the world who are not allowed to vote and whose voices do not count. Well, we started with Iraq. The left should have been demanding for 20 years that we go in and stop the human rights violations in that country and now that we finally are, it seems to me that they should hardly care that the premise was WMD’s or oil. They should just be glad for the freedoms we have brought to an oppressed people, particularly women.
And we are done in Iraq, shouldn’t the left demand we go into the Sudan and numerous other countries that are oppressing their people and stop that as well. Isn’t it our “responsibility as Americans”, as Mrs. Heinz said? She said that if we have the ability (we do) and the conviction (we should) then we had the obligation to free those voices that are currently silenced by oppression.
But when our soldiers are sacrificing their lives for that very thing, the left does nothing but bash them, smearing the Abu Graibh scandal around to include the whole military, and saying they die for false reasons.
Two-faced to the hilt as ever.
We went in because multiple intelligence agencies marked Iraq as a threat. Multiple people saw the evidence and concuured with the decision. A by-product of being there has been numerous freedoms that these people never before enjoyed. And soon they will be voting in their first elections. And that does not please the liberal left?
Sorry, most libs sound to much like Sybil to me. Multiple personalities, baby.
Any group that has the platform that abortion should be legal but the death penalty should not is off their rocker from the get go.
“Like I said earlier, I’d ENLIST in a war to protect our freedoms, just like my uncle and cousin did, but not a war that’s based on B.S.”
Posted by Surge at July 28, 2004 04:21 PM
LOL…I don’t think the Marines would want you as I don’t recall a Marine deciding what they will or will not fight.
They are way beyond your comprehension I’m sorry.
abel, get a clue. The elder Bush didn’t finish off Saddam because he only had authority from Congress to get him out of Kuwait.
Even THAT vote, to just get him out of Kuwait, only passed the Senate,iirc, 52-47.
He never would’ve got the authority to go all the way to Baghdad.
“Posted by [b]Rodney Anonymous[/b] at July 28, 2004 04:45 PM”
This “Rodney Anonymous” is not me.
Rodney, Given your hatred of your own country,I must ask ,why do you continue to live here?
Abel the U.N. only authorized getting Saddam out of Kawait. What is your nationality?
“Rodney, Given your hatred of your own country,I must ask ,why do you continue to live here?
Posted by Lisa at July 28, 2004 05:08 PM”
Lisa,
That “Rodney Anymomous” is not me.
I know Rodney!
Did anyone notice how in Teddy’s speech he said “whites against blacks,men against women,straights against gays? Notice who is the “against” group? Argggggg!!
Did anyone also happen to notice he mentioned White House & prayer in the same sentance? And that prayer mentions heaven?
Sorry everyone. Didn’t mean to kill the conversation. I just found that ironic.
Have a good day.
BUSH LIED NEOCON FASCIST LEO STRAUSS NO WAR NO BLOOD FOR OIL NO TAX CUTS FOR THE RICH NO CHRIST BROWNSHIRT NO ZIONIST HALLIBURTON BUSH STOLE THE ELECTION ENRON DIGITAL BROWNSHIRTS NAZI PEACE NO PIPELINES IN AFGANISTAN TORTURE GOP CABAL BUSH = HITLER CHENEY IS OIL EVIL ENRONOMICS BUSH KILLS CHILDREN GOP IS EVIL NO BUSH VOTE KERRY!!!!!
I posted this challenge to Surge on the Sharpton thread, but I’ll repeat it here:
Surge:
Here’s some reading for you as your idiotic hyperbole lacks verifiable links to sources. Read them at your own peril, because it appears that they make a liar out of you instead of Bush. Pay real close attention to the Washington Post editorial, basically a retraction of their Bush lied position.
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/jeffjacoby/jj20040712.shtml
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A482-2004Jul20.html?referrer=emailarticle
Plus a reading list on Moore’s lies and deceptions:
http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723
http://online.wsj.com/article_email/0,,SB109088016885774289-IhjgoNilaR3oZ2ta36IcKyIm4,00.html
I think the WSJ and Christopher Hitchens pretty much destroy Moore’s intergrity. So, Surge, after you finish your reading assignments, which everyone else is welcomed to read too, we will be waiting for your astute comments.
I like Derb’s answer the best, except I’d change that last line to “, I would kill that person with my bare hands.”
Always use this page by Nizkor describing all the logical fallacies when trying to discuss the propaganda shoveled by Moore.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/
An Appeal to Pity is a fallacy in which a person substitutes a claim intended to create pity for evidence in an argument. The form of the “argument” is as follows:
[would you want your child to die to secure Fallujah] is presented, with the intent to create pity.
Therefore claim [we must pull out of Iraq] is true.
This line of “reasoning” is fallacious because pity does not serve as evidence for a claim. This is extremely clear in the following case: “You must accept that 1+1=46, after all I’m dying…” While you may pity me because I am dying, it would hardly make my claim true.
The best response is to laugh it off:
Q: “Would you sacrifice your child..?”
A: “Human sacrifice is illegal, and besides, its not an effective way to win wars, as the Aztecs found out…”
Than ask Mr. Moore the following question:
“If the chief of the CIA told you that WMD was a “slam-dunk”, would you be willing to sacrifice the citizens of your city to prove him wrong?”
And I was particularly insulted by Moore’s comment on terrorism at the end of the interview.
[An interview that he demanded air unedited, unlike every single interview in F 911 edited for maximum propaganda effect].
Orielly: Its a world wide war on terrorism. I know that escapes you.
Moore: Wait a minute. Terrorism? Iraq?
Orielly: Yes. There are terrorists in Iraq.
Moore: Oh really? So Iraq now is responsible for the terrorism here? [classic bait and switch]
Lisa (or maybe I should say “Comrade Lisa”, now that your cover is blown);
You may be able to get away with that sort of talk at your National Organization of Witches meetings, but this site is for CONSERVATIVES and we follow GOD’S LAWS (the best laws ever!). Maybe your Trotsky-quoting friends forgot to tell you that the Bible (the best book ever!) makes it pretty darn clear that, when men are talking, women should not butt in (except maybe to ask if they can get the men folk a sandwich. And I definitely don’t want a sandwich that was paid for with your tainted Stem Cell research money).
Your left-leaning lesbo buddies down at Planned Patricide might get a kick out of badmouthing a true patriot like me (and therefore, by extension, the US of A – Oh, and also “Jerry’s Kids” because I once sent them a check back before I realized that you can’t solve a problem just by throwing money at. If those kids want to walk, they can just pull themselves up by their own bootstraps – or leg braces, or whatever.).
Well, the joke is on you, because I am 100% American and 100% conservative. Not like SOME people who post on this site who refuse to accept true conservative ideas like book burning and geocentrism. I am such a proud American that I refuse to bring up embarrassing facts like that during the Iran-Iraq war the West supplied arms to Iraq. In fact, during this period, over four hundred Western companies helped supply Saddam with lethal weapons. Not me. Never!
So, you and your little Red friends can keep asking me why I hate America and I’ll just smile and keep biding my time until McCarthyism, like all good trends, makes a comeback. Then we’ll see who’s laughing, Madame Mao.
Lisa, the UN did not authorize smaller Bush’s invasion of Iraq either. But he did it anyway…he does not care.
If you wish to get to know me better, we can meet. How’s that?
Nice try, Rodney, but your tortured parodies aren’t as cute as you think. Past your attempts at edgy humor(?), the content reveals a dufus trading in infantile stereotypes.
Got another act you can follow up with?
Tuesday, July 27, 2004
The Bill O’Reilly versus Michael Moore confrontation took place tonight; neither one came across as an intelligent debater. Moore kept hitting O’Reilly with the same question or variant thereof: “Would you send your son to Iraq to fight in Fallujah?” O’Reilly failed to answer the question, because he wanted to say that he would not, “…but I would go myself,” O’Reilly responded several times. O’Reilly missed the opportunity to say, “No, I would not send my son to Iraq to fight in Fallujah, but if he joined the military, then I would tell him he should honor his obligations to fight for the integrity of his country. If that means going to Iraq and fighting in Fallujah, then so be it.” He could have added, “The President and the Congress determine when and where the military fights, not the individual citizen, according to our system of government.”
It’s like the yes or no question… “Will you stop beating your wife?” Yes or No.
Or “Do you want to hurt the poor and get a tax cut?” Yes or No
Or “If you don’t babysit my child (mom) you must not love him, Right?” — I actually heard this one nonsensical question from a guy co-worker talking to his mother (giving her a guilt trip which apparently has worked in the past because he was so “enabled” to do it again).
Why do people ask loaded questions that can’t be answered yes or no and do not ALLOW the person being asked the question to state their view. Unfortunately people like to put words in each other’s mouths…..
As often done by polls done by ABC, CBS and CNN.
I revised my answer:
Would you send your son to die fighting a fire? Would you send your daughter to die trying to secure a crack house?
It is called an appeal to pity. The fact that Americans are dying to help Iraq rebuild itself, however horrible, does not prove that rebuilding Iraq is not a worthy cause.
There are legitimate reasons to oppose the war and to call for the troops to be removed, but look at how Moore tried to bait and switch Oreilly’s statement on terrorism [So Iraq now is responsible for the terrorism here?]. He is doing the same with this question.
“Have ANY of you seen this guy’s movie? ”
I saw parts of Bowling for Columbine, a movie riddles with lies and nonsense. I expect more of the same from F9/11.
I didn’t have to go see Gigli to know it was a horrible movie.
Pea brain- good point (at 3:50), except silence is usually interpreted as acceptance or agreement.
The thing I jumped on right away has been hashed over here plenty….For The Blob to ask ‘Would you sacrifice your CHILD in Iraq?’ is totally out in LEFT field. You can’t go and enlist your kids when they are 12 years old…I did 6 years in the Navy, and I don’t recall my mommy signing anything to make that happen. I did it all on my own…I love to hear all these people blatherng on about ‘All of these people are dying and getting maimed for no reason’….Well, since you can’t ask the people who died, I’d really like some of these assholes to go up to someone that lost a leg or arm and say to them ‘Hey, you know you lost both of your legs for nothing’…Right along the lines of this ‘Oh, I support the Troops, but the War is wrong’….give me a break…
The “Bush Lied” meme was offically flushed down the toilet when the British Bulter report disclose that in 1999 Iraq sought yellowcake from Niger.
Where in the world is Joseph Wilson? Hiding up Michael Moore’s rectum perhaps, getting a closer view of what Michael Moore represents?
I imagine Surge watching Fahrenheit 9/11 sitting silently stupified while Big Brother’s message drones relentlessly from the screen.
Surge, there is a reason why the “Kool-Aid” crowd is considered woefully spaced-out.
I never thought I would live to see the day when Michael Moore’s talent surpassed Joesph Goebbel’s.
There are only a handful of stars in Hollywood that have let it be publicly known that they are Republicans or lean towards conservatism.
Arnold gets the most attention. Tom Selleck; Bruce Willis is more of an independant. Mel Gibson. Charleton Heston. Let’s see who else….uh………hold on now, let me think. Jon Voight sometimes leans right on some things.
Still thinking.
Well, that’s all I can come up with.
Hollywood and the music industry are full of liberals; VERY FEW people that are conservative ever come out and publicly let that be known until AFTER they have sufficiently established themselves.
There is no way Mel Gibson could have withstood the firestorm of The Passion 10 years ago. He had to firmly establish himself as a filmmaker and not just an actor, with Braveheart and We Were Soldiers among others before he could risk his reputation with The Passion.
You just know some in Hollywood felt betrayed by one of their own when Gibson decided to make that film.
By the way, I’m still waiting for Hollywood to make a film about the Afghanistan and Iraq wars that doesn’t use it as a backdrop for a conspiracy movie a’ la The Manchurian Candidate.
Brian
“I’d send myself first before I’d send my child. But it would have to be a war that is NOT based on FALSE PREMISES, like the Iraq “war” is.”
Surge, do you let the little tyke tie his own shoes yet? How about wipe his own ass?
So if Iran nukes us 4 years from now, will you march into your ‘child’s’ room and say “This war meets my standards. I am now sending you to Iran. And don’t forget to write.”
Here’s hoping your child has a mind of his own.
Brian
Well, he wasn’t exactly my son, he was my stepson, and he didn’t die in Fallujah, he died in Balad. I am 50 years old, but if they would take me, I would fight to secure Fallujah. If I was ever face to face with Michael Moore and he started that Bush’s war crap with me I swear I would do my best to kill him with my bare hands and I would consider it no crime, just taking out the enemy in wartime.
Brian, And even though Saddam used them….
….the left will say…..
…. Bush lied !
Ha! The times we live in.
I guess this is how I would answer michael moore’s question.
Although your question is very stupid, I would have to answer no, I would not send my child to secure Fallujah, because I do not have to send them in. You see Mr. Moore, there are many many young adults in my country that still believe in my country the U.S.A. and who, unlike you, truly understand what it means to Honorable sacrifice something for the greater cause of our Nation. I hope and pray that I will never have to send my child or any child out on the battle field, but I do worry that someday my child may have to pick up arms at an early age to defend my country because of people like you and kerry.
I love Michael Moore for bringing the term “self critisism” to America. That is exactly what the Americans need. Why is it that you people think you are the greatest? The American attitude will only create more hate. Why is it that in every American movie the American flag is shown so many times? I know you’ve got to be proud about being from wherever you are but you cross the line with not caring about others.
Niels, whatever miserable country you come from would probably no longer exist if it weren’t for the USA. Buzz off.
Niels;
We have a free press here in America.
Moore is not engaged in ’self-criticism’ of America. As anybody who knows basic facts can tell, Moore’s films and books are chock-full of gross inaccuracies and distortions.
Bush has been criticized ever since he took office by ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, FOX News, The New York Times, The Washington Post, the L.A. Times and on the internet as well.
Some of the criticism is very accurate and justified. The mainstream press here sometimes overdoes it because the overwhelming majority of newspeople are liberal and lean against Bush’s viewpoints on many issues.
I would also like to say that in it’s brief 228 year history America has been directly instrumental in liberating about 800 million people or so.
Why do you suppose that is when other countries that have the same amount of resources and manpower, such as Russia or China, don’t have a record like that?
By making a film full of wild conspiracy theories (such as the Bush Family is the pawn of the Saudi Dynasty – LOVE that one)Moore is not engaging in ’self-criticism’. He’s engaging in propaganda.
There are many websites on the internet where you can check the actual facts against Moore’s wild claims, should you be inclined to do so.
moorelies.com is a good one.
Brian
“The Germans built Saddam a chemical weapons lab that produced mustard gas, VX gas and also some biological agents such as Anthrax.”
You forgot one little detail…
The U.S. (under Ronald Reagan) provided Saddam with chemical agents and military support in the 80’s.
The pics, video and documentation: http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/
Yeah, but they were just trying to bide their time. They knew that we would get Saddam eventually. All those times when we PRETENDED to be friends with Saddam were just setting us up to kick his ass. And now we got him and Iraq is a free, safe place to live.
“I think the WSJ and Christopher Hitchens pretty much destroy Moore’s intergrity. So, Surge, after you finish your reading assignments, which everyone else is welcomed to read too, we will be waiting for your astute comments.” onecent
My, my, my…how EASY it is for so many of you to quote the “EVIL LIBERAL MEDIA” like the Washington Post when it serves your purpose, but when it point out indiscrepancies in your beloved president’s policies, you attack it and call it “inaccurate” .
And these articles do not give concrete evidence of anything, onecent.
In his article in Townhall, even Jacoby concedes: “To be sure, none of this proves that Saddam’s agents sought uranium for use in nuclear weapons.”
The Washington Post EDITORIAL also concedes: “What is to be learned from these findings? Not necessarily that Mr. Bush and his top aides are innocent of distorting the facts on Iraq. As we have said, we believe the record shows that they sometimes exaggerated intelligence reports that were themselves flawed. A case against Saddam Hussein could have been made without such hyperbole; by indulging in it, the Bush administration damaged its credibility and undermined support for the Iraq mission.”
When I opened up the article at Townhall.com, a screen popped up saying “Opinion zone” and asking me to subscribe.
Opinions are like a-holes, y’know.
So now I have a reading assignment for YOU, and fully expect you to meet your end of this deal like I met mine.
Here are FACTS. Listen…and learn.
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/
Well, Surge, just read your link…that was a bunch of information that was already known and much discussed.
So, shortly after the Iranians exiling of the Shaw and holding our people hostage for all those months, we supported their enemies. Amazing. The enemy of my enemy is my friend. It is old news.
The documents you referred to do, however, seem to establish beyond all doubt that Saddam had WMD’s, used WMD’s and was working to increase his arsenal of WMD’s.
Then, through the 90’s, he defied UN directives and hindered the UN INspectors every step of the way.
Oh, and their is still the matter of the gross human rights atrocities engaged in by Saddam’s oppressive regime for all those years.
So, you have helped establish that he had WMD’s, used WMD’s and wanted more WMD’s. He violated the sovereignty of neighboring nations at least twice. He paid Palestinians to bomb our allies in Israel. He kidnapped, tortured, raped and murdered many Iraqis. He rebuilt his military through illegal oil deals with France, Russia and Germany.
Your rebuttal…we helped him 20 years ago when he was fighting another one of our enemies.
So what? We used him when it suited us and eliminated him when he was more of a threat than an asset. That’s hardly a shocking accusation.
It also does nothing to say that this preemptive strike wasn’t warranted by world’s intelligence available at the time.
“So what? We used him when it suited us and eliminated him when he was more of a threat than an asset. That’s hardly a shocking accusation.”
The documents not only show that we used him, but that we AIDED him with financial and military support, which he not only used against the Iranians, but against his own people.
Where was conservative “outrage” then against Saddam’s atrocities against his own people? Human’s rights groups were screaming about these atrocities for DECADES!
Oh, I get it. It’s irrelevant when our enemy’s enemy is our friend.
This is what’s shocking to me: conservative’s selective morality.
You folks never cease to amaze me.
Surge: A guy living in a gated, exclusive upper-class community in Crawford, Texas has more CHOICES than a young man who comes from a devastated rural or urban community where one of the few avenues for upward social mobility is joining the military.
Me: Never been to Crawford, eh?
I grew up in a “devastated rural” community. After high school I chose to go to college, and after obtaining my bachelor’s degree I chose to enlist in the Air Force. I knew before I even called the recruiter (yes, I called him, not the other way around) that I could be sent to war anytime anywhere by a commander in chief that I loathed (Bill Clinton) and could lose my life in the process. I’m proud I did it, I’m proud of those who did it before me, I’m proud of those I served with, and I’m proud of those doing it now. Would I send my children? They are 8 and 6, so it’s not even a valid question. I too have had family members in every war since the American Revolution, and I’m very very proud of that heritage.
And isn’t it funny how those who want to give America back to the people are not really in touch with the common man? I bet you those who are preaching their “share the wealth” platform aren’t willing to share their millions.
I agree, the best answer would have been to point out the fallacious nature of the question… no parent sacrafices their child. We aren’t sending them up as a human sacrafice, we are sending them with the best training and equipment that taxpayer money can buy. We hope none of them are called on to sacrafice their lives, we hope that none die each day, but if they do… it is their sacrafice not that of their parent, despite the tremendous level of grief a parent would feel.
Wow, nice post Chris. Hit it right on the head. People like Surge can’t remember historical context, that in the 1970s/80s we were helping an indigenous people (who only happened to be muslim) resist communist invasion. Completely in America’s self interest. Also, the outrage about Saddam’s crimes was very vocally expressed in conservative media and press, long before the first gulf war, and especially after it. Seems like Clinton was in charge after the 1st war, wonder why he didn’t do anything about it?
Have more blogs about Michael Moore-on on my site, SanityAnyone?