The Associated Press
Prince Harry returns from battle.
Featured
Topic |
Posted 37 weeks 5 days ago
Prince Harry returns from Afghanistan: Where are the sons and daughters of American leaders?
Prince Harry has returned to Great Britain from Afghanistan, where he was deployed with fellow soldiers as part of the NATO mission to stabilize that country and defeat Taliban guerillas. Harry's deployment has raised eyebrows across the pond, where war critics note that the sons and daughters of American leaders have largely avoided military service.
Should American leaders be willing to sacrifice family to the cause? Or does the old "chickenhawk" label fit? Listen to Ben and Joel discuss this on the podcast.
Thoughts
Sons and Daughters
Submitted on March 3rd, 2008 by CORNFINGER66Now if said sons and daughters where 18-30 years old. Going to rallies in support of the war, writing letters to the editor of there local paper if favor of the war, etc.
Then later in life when they are running for office or have a high profile job. The questions comes up, why didn't you serve during the Iraq War?
The answers they can give are. I had better things to do, from Cheney. Hey I was in the Guard (even though I had no chance of going) thanks Dad, Bush.
Then from my Congressman Mark Souder, If I had to go I would have been a Medic, since I am a consious objector. Then again he has none when it comes too sending other persons too war.
Those that support a war and that are of an age to go fight in that war, then do not. I think you can call a Chickenhawk.
I'll Cut the Dems a Deal...
Submitted on March 3rd, 2008 by Chuck_JohnsonDemocrats cannot make laws on legislation affecting the economy unless they run a small business if Republicans cannot make laws on the military unless they serve.
Sounds like a good deal for the GOP.
Chuck Johnson is a student at Claremont McKenna College. He blogs at claremontconservative.blogspot.com.
Not our system
Submitted on March 3rd, 2008 by AnonymousUnder the British system the monarch and the nobility have a hereditary obligation to take care of the peasants who support them.
The US constitution rejects hereditary rights and obligations. The president's daughters have no more obligation than a prime ministers daughters. A monarch can order a noble to go to war. A father in the US may not order his son to join the army. A prince is supposed to get special treatment. The child of a president should not.
Noblesse oblige is not some rarefied ethical concept. It's a legal concept meaning the obligations of the nobility.
I don't know if Ms. Achor understands that that she is not a noble nor are we peasants.
The National Honor Society was trying to instill a sense of morality in the intellectuals passing through their care. Simple moral concepts like chastity, fidelity, generosity, etc. tend to get lost among those who view themselves as the intellectual elite. That is why the Society has that motto.
If we, as American have the obligation to protect oppressed peoples the world over, then we had an obligation to invade Iraq and free them from Saddam, we have an obligation to occupy Darfur, and Obama (because he opposeed the war and opposes invading Darfur) should not be president.
McCain's sons serve
Submitted on March 3rd, 2008 by Monkey DavidWhere are the sons and daughters of American leaders? Well, one of McCain's son's is back from a tour in Iraq, and another is at the Naval Academy.
Does that make him more qualified to lead the country than someone who's adult children made a different choice?
Does Prince Harry serving in Afghanistan mean that Prince Charles should lead the UK over, say, and elected prime minister?
Of course not.