Bush Aligns Himself With Southern Baptists (homophobic?)

[The Duke]

Alfie, a few questions related to your tabbytitsworth pictures.

1. Is it accurate to say that no person who has not served in war can argue in favor of a war from a moral perspective?

2. Would this mean that someone who was born deaf, blind, or paralyzed or became such before turning 18, and therefore could not have served has no moral right to argue in favor of their opinions, even in a free society?

3. Would this mean that an openly gay person, also prohibited from serving in the military, has no moral right to argue in favor of their opinions, even in a free society?

4. Should I take your posts to mean that you believe that a veteran who is now homeless and addicted to heroine has a moral right or intellectual expertise to argue for a war, but foreign policy luminaries do not have this moral or intellectual expertise and should not argue in favor of their opinions, even in a free society?

5. Should I assume that you do not support the concept of civilian control of the military?

6. Should I assume that you opposed Bill Clinton's intevention in Bosnia, Haiti, Kosovo, and Iraq?

7. Should I assume that you believe that, because no non-veteran is qualified to mount a war effort, that no non-veteran should ever be President since they are not qualified to be commander-in-chief of the armed forces?  Should I also assume that you voted for Dole in 1996 and Bush in 1992?

Hope to hear your answers soon .

[The Duke]

First of all, George Herbert Walker Bush is a veteran of World War II, the youngest fighter pilot to have served in that war.

Second, war and intervention can be used almost interchangably.  Kosovo was a 72 day long bombing campaign, I described it as an intervention.  It could have easily and accurately been called a war as well.

Third, when asked whether someone could argue for war from a moral perspective without having served, I was asking not whether war was moral, but whether they had a moral right to argue for war.  I wouldn't imagine that this changes your answers though, since you believe that war is immoral.  Very well, you have chosen to claim that all war since World War II was immoral (knowing that you could not defend a policy of non-intervention against the Nazis and Japanese).  But you were willing to say that all wars from Truman to Bush were "folly".  So a new set of questions:

1. Why was it immoral for the United States to defend South Korea from foreign invasion?

2. Why was it immoral to defend Kuwait from foreign invasion?

3. Was it immoral to topple the Taliban, even after it became clear beyond any reasonable doubt that they posed a threat to innocent civilians around the world?

4. Was the United Nations, and by extension, nearly every government in the world, immoral for having sanctioned those wars?

5. Was it more moral for America NOT to intervene in Rwanda with military force than it would be had we gone in, guns blazing?

6. Since you say it does not matter whether the CIC is a veteran or not, because war is immoral, are veterans also by extension unqualified for the office having participated in such immoral behavior?

7. If #6 is true, doesn't that obligate you not to vote for John Kerry?  How about Al Gore?