"aemeijers" wrote in message
...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in message
...
DGDevin wrote:
To liberals, ending the war is the goal (for reasons passing
understanding), so the loss of a few lives is irrelevant.
You mean like the loss of 4,400+ American lives (not to mention those
of allies and Iraqis) for the goal of finding WMDs that didn't exist?
Just how immoral an act is starting a war on false pretenses?
We NEED a war every ten to fifteen years to keep the tip of the spear
sharp.


That's cool. But we need new rules. Any elected slob who votes for a
war - all their eligible living relatives go into combat first, and
they're given the most dangerous possible jobs. The ones no soldier
wants.

Why make the relatives suffer just because they are unlucky enough to have
a politician in the family?


Because I like the idea of treating our elected slobs and their families to
as much heartbreak as possible. I'm nasty that way. I'd add one thing: No
formal visit from the military if a senator's relative is killed in combat.
Instead, they'd get a post card from Disneyworld, inscribed on the back with
"Hi! Your daughter's dead! Have a nice day."

Our elected slobs need to start taking responsibility for their decisions.