Friar Reinman wrote:
I think what underlies what he is saying is that it is not right for some rich prick to be sitting in his condo in Maui, making decisions to send men to their death like they are resources and not people.
You are absolutely correct. However, it is the absolute right of the President of the United States, when given authority by an Act of Congress, to make those exact decisions. What part of the Constitution are you unclear on?
Quote:
It's like me saying, I am willing to sacrifice someone else's life to achieve my goals, but not my own, and therefore how can anyone really take my opinion seriously.
Sure. But that's not what's happening. In this case, I am merely pointing out that the President does have the power and the right to do that, and in this case, I believe he's justified in those actions. *I* am not making that decision. He is. I'm simply supporting that decision. I assume that I have the right to express my support for a decision made by the President, right?
Quote:
If you can't say that you would give your own life for something, then you have no right to send someone else to their death, otherwise you are the hypocrite, and you are the one with the double-standard.
Wrong wrong wrong. I have all the right in the world to express my opinions (it's in the first ammendment. Look it up if you want). The President has the right to command the United States military, doubly so when Congress gives him War Powers (as they did). There is absolute zero requirement for military service for someone to serve as president. Thus, that "right" does not hinge on military service at all. It hinges purely on one being elected to the office of President of the United States of America.
Just because the real world doesn't happen to match your wild notions is not my problem. If you want to debate the issues of the justification for the war in Iraq, please feel free to do so. But to argue that the other guy has no "right" to make a point because of a lack of military service is just pathetic. Address my arguments based on their merits. If my position is totally off in left field, then come up with a counter argument. If you can't do that, then don't try to pull up some bogus issue about my qualifications to argue a point. Obviously, if you can't come up with a better refutation of my argument then that, then I must be pretty darn qualified to argue it, military service or not...