I just had a "Whoa! Did I write that?" moment rereading my earlier post. This was way over the line and I sincerely apologize for saying this. I still do not agree with what you have said, but will try and keep remarks like that out of the discussion in the future. END-OF-APOLOGY, Disagreement to follow..
It seems to me that those who have NOT been to war and are in no danger of being sent there are the biggest champions of sending kids off to die.
I don't believe this is true. I still 'hang-out' with friends that are still active duty and there is ALOT of support within the military for attacking Iraq.
WRT Vietnam, nope. It is my personal example of civilian "control" being perverted by unelected bureaucraps
As I said earlier, I wasn't there. BUT, alot of Vietnam vets I've talked with weren't upset about civilians deciding IF to fight, but when politicians began getting involved with telling the military HOW to fight and tying the militarys hands behind it's back. This is a very important distinction.
A grand example of how this works to get people killed unnecessarily is the adventurism of Billy Jeff Klowntoon
A bad apple. Reagan wasn't former military. Bush isn't former military(not counting guard). Roosevelt wasn't former military.
I think we agree on whether Saddam should be deep-sixed(yes), but differ on how and why probably. As for chancellor, for all we know he(she?) could be one of the most decorated soldiers in history. This is the internet. You could be an 18 YO hooker in Belgium for all I know... My point is that it doesn't matter. Deciding on whether to go to war isn't a soldiers prerogative it's a citizens prerogative. Never has been, never should be.