well said my friend and blairs eldest,this and other questions should be put foward again and again.a lot of these pro-war idiots have no relatives in the army. grrrr....

Yes, why aren't Tony Blair's boys: Euan Blair (age 20) and Nicholas Blair (age 18)in the military?

that of all members of the us congress, only one had a child serving in the army...

As much as the sentiment can be admired it is a false argument to say that you should have your own kids in the military before sending people to war. When a person joins the army they agree to go to war regardless of the circumstances, so long as parliament decrees it is just to do so. The debate then must shift from petty "why aren't your kids there?" to the more appropriate "was it right?"

If any government says to police officers to patrol streets at night which are infested with guns (choose any major UK city) are they really only justified in saying that if their kids (or close family) are in the police? Where do we stop? No benefit laws unless their relative is on the dole? No NHS funding decisions unless one family member is ill?

So the argument over what their own personal involvement is becomes a false one. After all, they could turn it around and say "Which one of your family is in the army" and, if there is no one, claim you don't know what you're talking about.

I absolutely disagree. It’s easy to make glib comparisons, but war, like genocide, and other instances of mass death, is so horrible, that it stands alone…and cannot be compared with other situations. Sending one to war, is not the same as sending in the police, nor of giving welfare. It’s easy to trivialize an event by comparing it to some other less important event…but in the case of war, there are no comparisons. War should always be, the absolute last option. And if you think that a war is necessary, then yes, you fight it yourself, if you can, before asking anyone else to fight, and if you can’t, then you send your children to fight first, before asking anyone else to send their children.

But also you seem to forget that his daughters can make their own choices too just as those who join the army do! So he must press-gang his daughters into it as well?

And I disagree that it is easy to trivialise war! There really isn't anything to trivialise it with. What I was saying is that it is a matter of free will to choose what you want to do. If you choose to go into the army, you do so full in the knowledge that you may have to fight/die if your leaders say so. All you ask is that they send you to fight a just war. That is the issue. You don't ask for them to be beside you in the trench.

I detest Bush, as I do many country leaders, but I would never state that they have to fight a war themselves, or their family has to, in order to justify it. It simply doesn't hold any credibility and is not rooted in the real world.

These young women are campaigning for Bush, and Bush's war. They are of military age. If they're campaigning for a war, then obviously, they support it. If they support it, then they should join the military and fight it themselves, rather than expecting someone else to do the fighting (and dying) for them. To me, that's quite obvious. You don't support a war, that you could fight in yourself, and expect others to do the fighting for you. If you don't support the war, then, of course, I wouldn't expect you to join the military; but if you do and you're of military age, then, of course, I would expect you to...and if you don't, then in my opinion, you are a craven, cowardly, hypocrite (and I'm not addressing you, I'm addressing any of military age who support a war, but choose to have others do the fighting (and dying) for them.

The vast majority of US soldiers are economic conscripts. US capitalism (more so than the slightly more tame UK version) ensures there is a pool of people who can only find employment in the military, or cannot fund education (which is essential to climb the ladder out of some of the 'third world' areas of the US) without joining (the military put you through college). Michael Moore's Farenheit 9-11 has a bit on this - Marines wandering round shopping malls press-ganging naive teenagers . . . free will requires you to be informed about your decision, symetrical information, otherwise you are being manipulated. The Marine Corps recruiters in F9-11 talk about everything but what makes the army unique (killing for the government) - they tell one kid how he could join the Marine Corp basketball team . . .

I am well aware of the economic conscripts who feel their only resort to get on in life is to join up and I see the inherent injustice in that. That is a matter for their society to deal with and I truly hope they do.
However, the other side of that argument is to say that they still don't need to join up. There are other ways of getting on in life. It may take longer, it may be harder, but it is a choice.

Regarding the idea of having to fight in you support a war, I'm afraid that is not living in the real world. A fine concept but utterly ridiculous. Where does it stop? After all, by paying my taxes I, in a small way, am paying for that war and therefore economically support it! Do you get angry that Churchill and his cabinet members were not at the front line shooting instead of back in the UK planning? Should Blair/Annan/Clinton have been holding guns at the head of the UN peacekeepers when they went into Kosovo? If we send troops to Zimbabwe or the Sudan to avert humanitarian disasters, must our leaders be there also fighting alongside them? Will you say Saddam was wrong to flee when he should have stood and fought our troops because he believed in fighting back at them?

You can support something (even a war) without having to commit to the act yourself. After all, just because you don't support a war (me neither by the way), I don't expect you to go over to Iraq to try and stop people fighting. That is the logical conclusion of what you are saying.
People make the choice of what they wish to do in life and can support others doing something, or acting in a particular way, but don't necessarily have to commit the act themselves. That is modern times. Gone are the days that you will see the head of state marching at the head of the army!! We elect people to make decisions on our behalf - that's what a parliamentary/presidential democracy is about. (Ignoring Bush's "election" for a moment!).

The argument is over whether those who we elect have made the right decisions on our behalf and on behalf of those they send to fight. Cheap jibes about not fighting themselves does the anti-war argument no good.

Well, in fact, I don't think that the author is making the argument that the leaders should have to fight (and die) themselves...though that would be just.
Instead, the author is saying that anyone of military age should fight (and die) if he/she supports the war.
That makes a lot of sense (both practically, and morally,) to me. Why should anyone of military age expect others to do the fighting? If they're for this (or any) war, then, if they're of age, they should join the military, and fight it themelves...otherwise, they ARE hypocrites and cowards.

So Jill et al, the argument comes down to you saying anyone who supports the war should be fighting it? Therefore, anyone against it should be out there stopping it!

Realise how daft your argument sounds now?