<p>" would say that George Soros has a pretty good understanding of who the current policy in Iraq is benefitting most."</p>
<p>So personal gain over principle? As a staunch anti-war activist, he places profit over lives?</p>
<p>The question of whether this country as a whole is responsible for the actions of its leaders is an interesting one. Thomas Jefferson would say yes, I think.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Think about it this way:</p>
<p>The administration has made Halliburton stock incredibly profitable. If you were against the administration’s policies in Iraq and you had the means to do something about it…would you want those profits going into the hands of people who will turn around and do things with it that you think will harm our country? </p>
<p>Not me. In politics, money is a weapon. Every dime that Soros can take out of the hands of the above, he is free (if he chooses) to donate to people who will do things he thinks will help the country.</p>
<p>It may be realpolitik, but if the pro-war folks have a monopoly on the huge profits being generated by this war, it gives them all the more reason–and means–to continue it in perpetuity.</p>
<p>George Soros (like me) didn’t craft the policy that makes Halliburton the big bucks, unlike some people I know.</p>
<p>“So personal gain over principle? As a staunch anti-war activist, he places profit over lives?”</p>
<p>Of course! I keep my job, contribute my dollars to the Mafia war machine, and my pension fund invests in Halliburton on my behalf. (This doesn’t seem to me to be so difficult to understand.) </p>
<p>Hypocrisy is different from war-profiteering. Where one slides into the other, I’ll let you decide for yourself.</p>
<p>“Of course! I keep my job, contribute my dollars to the Mafia war machine, and my pension fund invests in Halliburton on my behalf.”</p>
<p>So where does principle come in?</p>
<p>“(This doesn’t seem to me to be so difficult to understand.)”
Tad snarky, there.</p>
<p>“So where does principle come in?”</p>
<p>Before the interest is computed. ;)</p>
<p>As to war-profiteering, the principle is to make as many bucks as quickly as possible, and to extend the time in which the bucks can be made for as long as possible.</p>
<p>“The question of whether this country as a whole is responsible for the actions of its leaders is an interesting one. Thomas Jefferson would say yes, I think.”</p>
<p>If they aren’t, who is?</p>
<p>How would you react if your son called you (soon after his 21st birthday) to notify you that he was contemplating enrollment in an accelerated ROTC program that would pay for his last two years of college, and that he would graduate as a commisioned officer? What would you do if he told you that he was not interested in the pursuit of money without meaning in his life, and that he would never be proud of himself unless he served his country? What if he told you that he was still planning on graduate school, but felt obligated to help “stop terrorism” while he was still young and fit? What if he told you that he wanted to use his intellligence as an officer for 3-4 years?</p>
<p>This just happened to us, and H and I were devastated. Even though we are totally against such a decision, he is an adult. We have always told him to do what he feels is the right thing to do, and to pursue his dreams. If he makes such a decision, we will still be his parents. </p>
<p>Our only regret may be that we didn’t keep him secluded in a liberal school up north! :rolleyes: He now thinks we are liberal hippies. We think he has been brainwashed by outside forces. We think that he was at a vulnerable age when September 11 happened and that he has watched too many movies and played too many video games that glorify war. We have always been opposed to war as a resolution, and will continue to be.</p>
<p>We are at a loss if S moves forward with this plan. Any thoughts?</p>
<p>I would have to accept the decision, but I would also inform him, gently, that there are many other ways to stop terrorism besides picking up a gun. (Notice I said “terrorism”, not necessarily “terrorists”.) The best way I know is to personally promote international understanding, and the best way to do it is to know one little area in the world really, really well, put your nose to the grindstone, and help make folks’ lives just a little bit better, or simply just be there to be a witness to their daily struggles. And then I’d say what little in my wallet is available to make it happen. </p>
<p>It isn’t glamorous, there aren’t immediate results, it won’t make newspaper headlines, and it can be dangerous! but in the long run, I think the only way to stop terrorism is to make terrorists’ recruiting efforts fall on barren soil. And it will go beyond the pursuit of money, and it will add meaning to his life. Or least I can say that it has done so immeasurably for mine.</p>
<p>Sigh. I will hold your son and your family in the light.</p>
<p>mini:</p>
<p>My H has suggested many many options besides the miltary that could impact the world in a positive way. H is the biggest pacifist I know. He has always had a great realtionship with S. Needless to say, this relationship has recently been strained because of this major philosophical difference of opinion! We were hoping it was a phase, but now we are not so sure… He is an articulate intelligent athletic handsome young man - with his whole life ahead of him. We are now thinking that his life could be in danger because of all the wrong reasons. So yes, maybe we are liberal hippies after all.</p>
<p>PS: We are not sure we have really accepted the decision, nor ever can. We keep hoping that it is not too late, and that he will see the light.</p>
<p>Thanks to all our cc friends for any kind thoughts or words of advice. There is another thread that talks about parental challenges. This is the biggest one we have faced to date. … :eek:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What is your definition of mass genocide? Is 65,000 executions (20 times the current US casualties in Iraq) an acceptable price to pay for peace in Vietnam? That’s what some report. Other’s report 100,000 in Vietnam alone. Then there were those who were sent to the camps who never survived their treatment - perhaps another 150,000 to 175,000 or so. And also, don’t forget the other hundreds of thousands who died at sea trying to escape the slaughter back home (you don’t think that they were risking their lives to avoid being sent to summer camp for new citizens do you?)
<a href=“http://www.vietka.com/DeathCasualty.htm[/url]”>http://www.vietka.com/DeathCasualty.htm</a></p>
<p>You really don’t intend to compare these camps to Guantanamo do you - you normally don’t sink to such over-the-top comparisons.</p>
<p>
No, the choice was to continue to provide aid as agreed to in the Paris Treaty after we got our troops out. We did that for two years and the S Vietnamese were handling things pretty well all on their own - then the noble Congress decided that they would pull the plug on aid. As soon as they did this North Vietnam massed a full scale attack on the South and the rest is history - especially for those who paid the ultimate price for Congress’ treachery.</p>
<p>What are you doing to support the troops?</p>
<p>
This isn’t the Vietnamese exodus that my neighbors describe. As former refugees and prisoners of the North Vietnamese, they tell a different story.
I think it’s fine to ask the question once, maybe twice if you’re really interested. Then it just becomes passive aggressive. Do you really want a contest to see who does more? Anyone can say anything on an internet forum without having to back it up with proof. But I’ll answer your question in limited terms – some info is not mine to share. We donate money to veteran’s groups, and support drives through our kids’ school. We have veterans in our family who we support in any way we can. DH’s job involves direct support of the military – and no, he doesn’t work for Halliburton or any other for-profit organization.</p>
<p>But at least as importantly, we give them respect as intelligent individuals who make a deliberate decision to serve this country. We vote for the political party that understands that the role of the military is to protect and defend this country, and we don’t belittle them for what they do.</p>
<p>1sokkerman, I understand your concerns. But given the news over the last few days, with the tornado in Alabama and the bus accident in Atlanta, it is once again obvious that nothing is certain. It seems to be a parent’s job to worry about our kids – I think the important thing, once you’ve shared your feelings, is to support him in any way you can. I hope your husband is able to overcome his reluctance so as to maintain what sounds like a wonderful relationship.</p>
<p>While it is true that awful things can happen to our children any day of the week, the possibility of being killed by a tornodo are somewhat more remote than the possibility of being harmed or worse as a solider in Iraq. I understand and commisserate with 1sokkermom’s concerns.</p>
<p>Peace and calm vibes sent your way, Sokkermom. And I agree with SJ, that I hope you and your H can continue to maintain a wonderful relationship with your son, despite this choice. These are the times that test our strength as parents, but I am sure you are up for the task. Plus, he will need your love and support. May G-d watch over your son and keep him safe.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I assume from other posts that you vote Republican. Do you really mean to imply that people like Admiral Joe Sestak, Jim Webb, Tammy Duckworth, and all the Democratic men and women now serving on active duty in Iraq and all the Democratic veterans don’t understand the role of the military? </p>
<p>I’m flabbergasted. Absolutely flabbergasted.</p>
<p>Thank you sjmom. I had the same thought when I saw the article about the bus accident and the tornado. I know we are worried about his safety, and that he could get in an accident some other way. </p>
<p>The world is just so volatile right now. We have always done everything to keep him safe. Now it is out of our hands. As parents , we want to protect him and love him and keep him out of harms way forever. We are not ready for him to go to war. He’s the oldest, and our only son. </p>
<p>Is it possible that things could settle down in two years in Iraq so that he wouldn’t actually have to serve in combat? We can only hope. In the meantime, we have been praying and shedding lots of tears behind closed doors. We raised him to be proud and make his own decisions. We just are not ready yet…</p>
<p>“I think it’s fine to ask the question once, maybe twice if you’re really interested. Then it just becomes passive aggressive.”</p>
<p>Excuse me, but the name of this forum is "Supporting the troops? – To what extent? If FF wants to talk about the Killing Fields, he is quite welcome to start another forum. Otherwise, I think the question is totally fair game.</p>
<p>No, I don’t think that was what was meant.</p>
<p>There may be individuals in the party who do recognize the role. </p>
<p>However, the party as a whole doesn’t.</p>
<p>It’s why the Democrats fought so hard to not have the ballots from our military overseas counted in the 2000 election.</p>
<p>The military knows who’s with them and who is clueless on matters military.</p>
<p>It’s just not up to you to control the discussion, mini. If other posters want to discuss other matters, that should be okay. When you repeatedly ask the question the way you are, then it seems aggressive to me. If it’s not what you intend, then I’m sorry. I can only tell you how it seems to me.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Republicans have done their fair share of this. Caging lists were used by the Republican party in Florida to challenge the registrations of African American soldiers who were known to be serving overseas. In Ohio, the state election official tried to block any soldier who had returned from overseas before getting his absentee ballot from voting altogether. By the time the court over-ruled him, it was too late for many. In the last Presidential election, the Republican administration decided that soldiers who wanted to vote from Iraq had to give up their secret ballot, an essential right of all Americans, and vote via email. Emails that were tallied by a private contractor with strong ties to the Republican party.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think you have your parties mixed up. A party that knows that the role of the military is to protect and defend this country uses them for that purpose and lets that be the main focus, not random nation-building adventures in countries that are no immediate threat to us.</p>
<p>Your party took soldiers away from a war that did involve our national defense to start one that didn’t. Iraq was no threat to us–no WMD, no ties to Al Queda. Now, we can’t deal adequately with what’s happening in Afghanistan, can’t bring Osama bin Ladin to justice, can’t respond adequately to a new front if it opened up. </p>
<p>Why? Because the neocons in your party thought that the role of the military was to “spread democracy” rather than to protect and defend our country. And you refuse to repurpose the troops back to protecting and defending our country.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Clueless? Let me get this straight. People who–correctly–predicted that invading Iraq would result in instability are “clueless”? By comparison to the neocon think tankers who said it would be a “cakewalk” with “no casualties” that would cost “less than 100 billion” all “paid for from Iraq’s oil revenues” and most troops would be home in “six months”?</p>
<p>I would think that the clued in party is the one saying we should listen to generals on military strategy and the clueless party is the one saying we should keep letting the think tankers call the shots.</p>
<p>It may be that at one time the Republican party served the interests of the military best. At one time, it served the interests of African Americans best, too. Till the 1960s, African Americans were overwhelmingly in the GOP. Now, almost no one even remembers that.</p>
<p>But it’s quickly turning for the troops. They understand that this Republican party isn’t the Republican party their fathers belonged to. Republican party membership among the troops serving in Iraq is declining. Groups like IAVA and Disabled American Veterans are making sure that America gets beyond the yellow ribbon propoganda and understands the truth: that today’s Republicans have a very dismal track record on issues like equipment, training, health care, and veterans benefits. </p>
<p>And an even worse track record on even understanding what will happen when they send troops to occupy a country.</p>