[Alberta's Child]

No offense to you, but my rule of thumb is that I don't give any credibility to "armchair quarterbacks" who support a military campaign where someone else's lives are at risk, but not their own.

The fact that this description would likely apply to every @sshole inside the Beltway who orchestrated the invasion is what set me off back in 2003.

[fr_freak]

...my rule of thumb is that I don't give any credibility to "armchair quarterbacks" who support a military campaign where someone else's lives are at risk, but not their own.

Sure, sure, but this pretty much applies to almost every war, ever. The ones sending guys to war are not the ones going. Most of the ones supporting the war morally and materially are also not going. So your argument appears to be against war in general based on a condition that can never be met. For my part, I was in Iraq in 1991 and only health issues prevented me from going back in 2003. If those who have not been in war cannot send men to war, then I would also say those who have not been to war should also not keep men from war, because neither judgment would be based on experience or risk to self.