Sadly, many now think the military is for losers

I am glad I deleted my post as you touched on the main point in your first sentence.

I am wondering how you would go about dealing with the rising threat of a culture that wants to assimilate or annihilate everything in their path though. Isolation does not work in this situation, IMHO.

Just my two cents.

I'm very, very well paid by the Military...Have never been hurting for $$$ my entire time in...

Our military's purpose is not to serve the "international interest." Its purpose is to protect this nation from enemies, foreign and domestic. There is no such thing as a common international interest, because that interest would have to include the interest of our enemies. Therefore, your hypothetical situation is irrelevant, and a rather poor attempt to distract me from the fact that you have no firm argument on which to stand.

This doesn't answer my question, which was, if we actually were to engage in a mission most conservatives opposed and regarded as a mistake, would it not still be possible for them to support the troops while opposing the mission?

I am wondering how you would go about dealing with the rising threat of a culture that wants to assimilate or annihilate everything in their path though. Isolation does not work in this situation, IMHO.

I'm certainly not advocating total isolationism, either--more of a traditional Republican "restrained" policy. But that is definitely a debate for another thread (and it's not a position I hold particularly strongly, so it factors less than many others into my voting decisions).

"This is lib-speak for "I'm a cowardly, spineless jellyfish of a lib who wants to bask in all the freedoms that come under the umbrella of protection provided by the US military without actually having to risk my pathetic girly-man hide to ensure their survival"

Damn, that's brilliant! Mind if I steal that?

Fair enough.

I do agree with your general point.

....many agree that journalism, and some local talk radio hosting positions are for losers....???

None of them had given military service much thought. All of them were against the war in Iraq.

I guess they are not thinking about much at all.

There is no such thing as a common international interest, because that interest would have to include the interest of our enemies.

I believe that is what the U.N. is for, not the U.S. Military.

"...an honors class studying the legal aspects of the war on terrorism."

"All of them were against the war in Iraq. They told me they support the troops, but not the war itself. They won't sign up to fight a war they consider illegal and a mistake."

An 'honor's class studying the 'legal aspects' of a war they think is a 'mistake'? Looks to me like they took the class to justify decisions they already made.

'Why aren't you in Iraq?" That's the question I posed recently to a group of undergraduates at the University of Texas

The bold in itself is a barf alert. If I'm not mistaken, I remember a Gary Chapman from some years ago.

He lived three doors down and was a real pri**. His wife beat the cr** out of him, after he had a kid with another woman, and had enough stupidity to go back to his house after she kicked him out.

He walked up to the door, and told his ex he wanted his children to know they had a half brother.

Talk about stuck on stupid, this guy holds the patent.

I believe that is what the U.N. is for, not the U.S. Military.

And you are correct. Unfortunately, our young "scholar" friend is not so well educated in the facts.

Well, hey now! There's some pretty good stuff going on there on the northish-eastish of the campus (engineering). The pinheads in this article off in law school or down at the "free speech area" near the Psych bldg, well, fuggeduboutit...doesn't matter what school they go to, same tude.

As for the Chapman guy, here's some random googling:

“Getting computers and the Internet into the hands of people who would otherwise not have access to these essential tools is perhaps the most important issue in Austin today. Austin Free-Net is the right organization to do this. They have the experience, the track record of success, the leadership, the best staff, and the right vision and approach.” — Gary Chapman, LBJ School of Public Affairs, University of Texas

Gary Chapman

Lecturer in Public Affairs, 2005-06; Coordinator, 21st Century Project

512-471-8326
gary.chapman@mail.utexas.edu
SRH 3.211

Fall 2005 Office Hours:
By appointment only

Gary Chapman, who came to the LBJ School in 1993, directs the 21st Century Project, which sponsors public interest research and education programs on science and technology policy. He has authored numerous articles on science and technology policy, including a 200 page report entitled "The 21st Century Project: Setting a New Course for Science and Technology Policy," coauthored with Joel Yudken. He also writes a biweekly syndicated newspaper column on technology for the Los Angeles Times; the column, "Digital Nation," is published in many newspapers around the world. He is also a columnist on technology issues for the Austin American-Statesman and Texas Monthly magazine.

In early 2000, Chapman was named one of the "25 Most Powerful Texans in High Tech" by Texas Monthly. In 1999, the Austin American-Statesman named him one of its "Ten to Watch." Also in 1999, Chapman was named to the selection committee for the Turing Award, the world's highest award in computer science.

From 1984 to 1991, Chapman was executive director of Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility, the only national public interest group composed of computer scientists. The organization investigated international security, arms control, and the role of computers in the arms race. Chapman also served in the U.S. Army Special Forces, or "Green Berets."

Chapman earned his B.A. from Occidental College and attended Stanford University's Political Science Ph.D. program.

And I for one, would like to thank your brave and handsome husband for his service to our country and thank you, his brave and beautiful wife for supporting him!!! ;*)

It is people like you and the Sgt. that make our country great!

As do we in Nebraska. In fact, we have an unusually high percentage of the state's population stationed overseas in Iraq. Frankly, I'm growing a little weary of these leftist mouth-breathers, who dream up these little anecdotal "features" and try to pass them off as the truth.

Why do we always let the dim-libs define terms. What is with this mute republican party that it cannot seem to counter the propaganda.

Repubs have to play the media game. They have to go toe to toe with the rats. Otherwise the spin that they put out gets picked up and amplified by the MSM without any contradiction.

Besides just on principle the repubs should defend their honor and the honor of their constituents. For the life of me I cannot understand the placid-flacid strategy while getting methodically picked apart.

Thanks. :-)

Did my 20 from a (lower) middle class springboard.

Knock yourself out! ;-)

Further, take a hypothetical situation (it's not an analogy to the present situation; it's simply designed to illustrate my point) in which President Hillary Clinton sends the military on an ill-conceived and ill-fated intervention mission in Africa--one that is not particularly in the national interest, but maybe in the "international interest." Say this mission is highly costly in both military lives and money. Would it be possible to support the military and oppose the mission? Would it be possible to believe the mission was a mistake, or is even this unacceptable once we have engaged in it?

You are comparing apples (George W. Bush) and oranges (the Clintons), YS.

We at FR have ALWAYS supported the military, especially when they were in thrall to the socialist witch and her horndog husband, who viewed the military as dogs and treated them like dogs.

Don't equate commanders when there is no equating them.