A tactic used by Michael Moore and others against the war on terrorism is to ask the question, "Would you send your child to Iraq?" Implicit in this question is the question, "Would you sacrifice your child?"
This question appeals only to emotion, not logic. Of course, no rational parent wants to sacrifice anybody's child or send any child to war.
We should respect our military's sacrifice by having mature, rational discussion about the war. Rational people can disagree. Ultimately our common bond should bring us together. The terrorists aren't attacking liberals or conservatives. They are attacking Americans.
Our soldiers sacrifice now in order to prevent a greater tragedy later. Moore's question navely assumes that if we pull out of Iraq, no more children will die. But many more will die in a future terrorist attack. Does Moore propose to sacrifice our children's future? That isn't sacrifice. That is insanity. We must be strong, now.
We are the most compassionate nation in history. But terrorists don't want our charity. We have the most powerful military in history, but terrorists don't use traditional military tactics. They are uncivilized. The only acceptable appeasement would be our way of life. That would be like preventing our murder by committing suicide. We can't appease. Ending tragedy always requires sacrifice.
Will the next target be an elementary school? Here, or there? My child, or yours? There will be more sacrifices. So back to the original question, "Would you sacrifice?" It is disrespectful to ask that simply to stir emotions. It isn't a choice of to, or to not, sacrifice. That answer is easy. Reason shows the proper question is, which sacrifice? Which, not whether. The correct answer isn't to accept the sacrifice or not. It is to end the sacrifice, forever, now.