Rich man's war, poor man's fight?

[Sunstone]

Haha. Trying to set me up, huh? It is what I have noticed through my own experience and from listening to experts in the field of politics. Not purely emotional; or based on just a whimsical feeling.

Who are these "experts"?

 

[michel]

I would like to think that the war was about removing a tyrant from his Country, where he was busy abusing all and sundry (That is what I thought at the start of the Iraqui war). Now it seems to be generally accepted that the whole war was a sham, and all about oil; however, no one but the President can really know his motives (and the same can be said about Blair), I still believe Blair was honest, and I hope I could call all those who put Bush down cynics.


I guess we will never know for sure.

 

[Ardent Listener]

In my opinion, it is good for us to challange each others statements and ask for facts to back them up. I have had some of you paint me in a corner with my own words. Good for you. Of course some subjects such as religion are subjective and our "feelings" on the subject are an inportant factor in our own personal beliefs.

Also we can't prove a negative. How do you prove that there was not wepons of mass distruction in Iraq if there never were any? If I accuse you of having a gun in your bedroom and you never did, and seach your bedroom and can't find it, all I have to do is accuse you of moving it to your basement. And it goes on and on, over and over. It would be impossible for you to prove to me you never had one. On the other hand, if you did have a gun in your bedroom and moved it some place else, that can be very difficult, but not impossible, for me to prove.

Searching for the truth is difficult, but we need to keep an open mind to facts when they are presented and challange those facts if we can.

 

[michel]

In my opinion, it is good for us to challange each others statements and ask for facts to back them up. I have had some of you paint me in a corner with my own words. Good for you. Of course some subjects such as religion are subjective and our "feelings" on the subject are an inportant factor in our own personal beliefs.

Also we can't prove a negative. How do you prove that there was not wepons of mass distruction in Iraq if there never were any? If I accuse you of having a gun in your bedroom and you never did, and seach your bedroom and can't find it, all I have to do is accuse you of moving it to your basement. And it goes on and on, over and over. It would be impossible for you to prove to me you never had one. On the other hand, if you did have a gun in your bedroom and moved it some place else, that can be very difficult, but not impossible, for me to prove.

Searching for the truth is difficult, but we need to keep an open mind to facts when they are presented and challange those facts if we can.

How do you prove that there were no weapons of mass distruction in Iraq if there never were any?

That is a very good point. How do we actually know that they are not still there ?

I remember seeing a programme on Television here where some guy very accidentally found an opening to something, while rock climbing (can't remember where, or when, but that is immaterial).

What he had happened on, by accident, was a mass Weapons armory, so well hidden in the countryside, that not even the people living nearby knew it was there.

I defy anyone who can have totally unrestricted access to the whole of Iraq, to find every single hidey hole. For all we know, If there were weapons of mass destruction hidden anywhere, Saddam, on being attack, could have had everyone who knew of the existance of it executed.

Feasible ? I think so.

 

[Smoke]

"Rich man's war, poor man's fight" describes this and pretty much every other war.

 

[Ardent Listener]

That is a very good point. How do we actually know that they are not still there ?

I remember seeing a programme on Television here where some guy very accidentally found an opening to something, while rock climbing (can't remember where, or when, but that is immaterial).

What he had happened on, by accident, was a mass Weapons armory, so well hidden in the countryside, that not even the people living nearby knew it was there.

I defy anyone who can have totally unrestricted access to the whole of Iraq, to find every single hidey hole. For all we know, If there were weapons of mass destruction hidden anywhere, Saddam, on being attack, could have had everyone who knew of the existance of it executed.

Feasible ? I think so.

They could still be there, (or someplace else) but if they are, it is then not impossible to prove so by finding them. Very very difficut, but not impossible. But if they never were there, it would be impossible to prove that they never were there if one want to continue to believe that they were there, but moved.

 

[Ardent Listener]

"Rich man's war, poor man's fight" describes this and pretty much every other war.

Just your opinion or do you have facts to share with us to back it up?

 

[Fluffy]

Whilst the emotional impact that this concept can have on some people, including myself, is massive (summed up best in System Of A Down's B.Y.O.B "Why don't president's fight the war? Why do they always send the poor?", if you haven't heard it you are missing out), I don't think that such a such a statement is applicable any longer.

Nobody is forced to go to war (everybody has a choice to join the army with the knowledge they might be called to war) and under conscription, the discrimination is age, not wealth.

 

[michel]

Whilst the emotional impact that this concept can have on some people, including myself, is massive (summed up best in System Of A Down's B.Y.O.B "Why don't president's fight the war? Why do they always send the poor?", if you haven't heard it you are missing out), I don't think that such a such a statement is applicable any longer.

Nobody is forced to go to war (everybody has a choice to join the army with the knowledge they might be called to war) and under conscription, the discrimination is age, not wealth.

Good point Fluffy; I remember seeing a guy who had been called up (he was a T.A reserve) and he looked pretty shaky, almost as if the idea of actually fighting enemy had never entered his mind.........

 

[Fluffy]

Good point Fluffy; I remember seeing a guy who had been called up (he was a T.A reserve) and he looked pretty shaky, almost as if the idea of actually fighting enemy had never entered his mind.........

Well a lot of people would say that these people didn't join the army figuring they would go to war and therefore they were forced into fighting. I say they made a calculated risk which was either clever or stupid depending on how prepared they were to get the downside of that risk. If they were not prepared to take the consequences of their actions, they should not have been prepared to take those actions in the first place. I do feel sympathy for them (how could anyone not?) but excusing their actions would alleviate the need to learn from mistakes and is counter productive in my view.

 

[Smoke]

Just your opinion or do you have facts to share with us to back it up?

Rich man's war:

Generally speaking, those who hold the reins of government and who make the decisions about whether to go to war are relatively wealthy and powerful members of their societies.

Poor man's fight:

However, those have less wealth and power bear much of the burden of war, because

• There are more of them.
• They have fewer options for avoiding military service in cases of conscription, and in the case of a volunteer army they're more likely to enlist because of their more limited economic options. For instance, a poor person is more likely to enlist as a way of funding his education.
• They have fewer options for removing themselves and their families from harm's way. For instance, poor Britons were less likely to be able to send their children to Canada during World War II.

 

[Ardent Listener]

Rich man's war:

Generally speaking, those who hold the reins of government and who make the decisions about whether to go to war are relatively wealthy and powerful members of their societies.

Poor man's fight:

However, those have less wealth and power bear much of the burden of war, because

• There are more of them.
• They have fewer options for avoiding military service in cases of conscription, and in the case of a volunteer army they're more likely to enlist because of their more limited economic options. For instance, a poor person is more likely to enlist as a way of funding his education.
• They have fewer options for removing themselves and their families from harm's way. For instance, poor Britons were less likely to be able to send their children to Canada during World War II.

You present some good points here. By numbers alone, there are of course more "poor" in the military than there are "rich". But as it has been already pointed out by the U.S. goverment statistics, the middle class has a higher percentage than the poorest class in the military.

 

[Ardent Listener]

As we talk about "rich" and "poor" it has been my personal experience that many people in the "middle class" like to call themselves "poor". For example, my parents grew up during the depression "poor" by todays standards. My father even more so than my mother. As I grew up, we lived a rather comfortable, "middle class" to "upper middle class", lifestyle thanks to the hard work of my father and the union he belonged to. Yet, they would often refer to themselves as being poor. So I guess you have to consider what you believe "poor" is when you answer the question asked above.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Just your opinion or do you have facts to share with us to back it up?

Can you name a single poor man who has started a war?

Terry__________________________
Amen! Truly I say to you: Gather in my name. I am with you.

 

[michel]

Can you name a single poor man who has started a war?

Terry__________________________
Amen! Truly I say to you: Gather in my name. I am with you.

Unless I have misunderstood Terry, I think the idea is that the rich start the war, and the troops are made up of 'the poor' (at least that is my understanding of it).

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Unless I have misunderstood Terry, I think the idea is that the rich start the war, and the troops are made up of 'the poor' (at least that is my understanding of it).

Almost by definition, the poor make up the bulk of any army.

Terry___________________-
Amen! Truly I say to you: Gather in my name. I am with you.

 

[Darkdale]

Almost by definition, the poor make up the bulk of any army.

Terry___________________-
Amen! Truly I say to you: Gather in my name. I am with you.

But not disproportionally, I don't think.

 

[michel]

Almost by definition, the poor make up the bulk of any army.

Terry___________________-
Amen! Truly I say to you: Gather in my name. I am with you.

Of course; I was merely questioning "Can you name a single poor man who has started a war?" thinking you understood the point as being the one who started the war, as opposed to the fighters.

 

[Ardent Listener]

Can you name a single poor man who has started a war?

Terry__________________________
Amen! Truly I say to you: Gather in my name. I am with you.

I can't name any single man, rich or poor, who started a war all by himself.

 

[AtheistAJ]

I didn't read through this, but I heard of some NFL football player who was offered millions to play, which he refused to "defent his country"... then he died in Iraq. No doubt though this war is all about oil (which I didn't think when it started), as now Iran has WMDs and troops are still there 1/2 year after "Mission Accomplished".