How screwed up is this?

Better watch out... the local watchdog on Bush hating might be jumping down your throat for that one...

Completely agreed. It's one thing to sit back and comfortably discuss Bush's desire to send 20k+ more troops over there, and have some people say that it won't do any good while others have blinders on and chant "must do what bush says" over and over again. It's another thing entirely to see the effect this has on those Americans we have out there fighting in the war.

I, for one, am not willing to support a CIC who is willing to abuse the troops like this over and over again.

 

Here's a suggestion:

No soldier should be sent to war unless he/she specifically volunteers for that duty, and could not be kept in the war longer than the specific term volunteered for. A soldier who refused to volunteer when asked, could be honorably discharged.

Conservatives will argue that the president needs to be able to send people to war against their wishes, and even violate their enlistment contract by extending their period of service against their will, in order to meet the military needs of the country.

But I say that a war that nobody is willing to fight is probably a war we should not be fighting. This would bring democracy to the decision to go to war: one of the most serious and potentially disastrous decisions a country can make.

Bring home now every soldier who expresses the wish to come home. When there's a war that really needs to be fought because the U.S. in in danger, there will be plenty of volunteers to fight it.

 

Actually, when someone signs on with the military, they are signing on for any duty given to them by the CIC. That includes a war.

 

How about this: Nobody is sent to Iraq or Afghanistan unless they voted for a congresscritter who voted for the war. In that case, anything goes.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(livelychick @ Jan 26 2007, 11:28 AM) [snapback]381271[/snapback]</div>

I am suggesting we change that. Kind of a way for the public to veto the president.