Read the link, dear. The only “nostalgia” I can think of are the days when chikenhawk fucktards such as yourself felt you had some sort of legitimate reason to invade Iraq – agaisnt all available couter-evidence. Then again, I can see how that wouldn’t qualify as nostalgia to someone like yourself, being as you are, a prominent and proud member of the “make your own reality crowd.”
As reluctant as I am to criticize a companero, stern duty demands.
Whether a person is, was, or ever shall be, under arms has no bearing on thier argument. If the most sniveling of cowards tells you the war in Iraq sucks, it still sucks. And vice versa.
By the way, who are you taking to the Trotskyist Ball?
Criticism is always welcomed on my end. But surely you’d grant that not all sources of same are equal.
Yes and no. For while I agree that the validity of any argument should solely lie on its merits, I can’t deny I have a great deal more admiration towards the International Brigades than I do for those that backed the Republic solely on principle. And while I understand that both are needed for victory, usually, the ones shedding the blood determine the politcal outcome.
Not suggesting that Sam’s inclusion would tilt the occupation either way, but mayhaps a whole bunch of Sams could. IOW, if only genuine war-supporters did more than cheer from the comfort of their homes, the US might have a better chance of performing their legal duty as an occupying force: protecting the average Iraqi from the current anarchy in place. Can you spell f-a-i-l-u-r-e?
To be complety honest, not sure I’d like that train of thought come into fruition, for the last thing I’d want to see is the US’s Armed Forces become even more powerful under Bush’s Neocon driven ideology. I’m fairly confident you know why.
Modesty aside for a sec, a man of considerable taste that I am, Salma Hayek, of course.
John, I was making a semi-obscure reference to the film Sevastopol mentions. Her character, Mexican painter Frieda, is not only very fond of Leon but they actually have an affair.
Redfury: One question about the ‘Chickenhawk’ argument: Does this mean that civilian control of the military is a bad idea? Should decisions about where and when the military is used be left up to only people who have served in the military? Do you REALLY believe this?
If not, then why are you talking out of your ass? What happened to your principles? I remember a time when the left warned continuously of the ‘military-industrial complex’, and viewed with suspicion the advice of generals and ex-military people. But now a person’s opinions on military force are invalid unless they’ve served?
I’m pleased to hear that you know the origin of the phrase. I’m not certain that everyone else reading this thread did. Was it OK when Eisenhower said it, and then suddenly not OK when non-republicans became concerned with the problem? Do you honestly think the the problem of an overly cosy military industrial complex went away in the 60’s, 70’s, 80’s, or 90’s?
For that matter, is it still a problem today? US accounts for almost half global defense spending World Wide Military Expenditures SIPRI military expenditure database
If the military industrial complex is still a problem, then why are you bitching about the lefties taking notice of it?
What I’m bitching about, in case you didn’t notice, is this sudden declaratio that the only people qualified to discuss issues of war and peace are those who served in the military.
Not to interrupt this cozy poo-flinging contest, but you do realize that you are building a discussion point on a false meaning of the word chickenhawk, right?
A chickenhawk is not simply a never-served-in-the-military civilian. A chickenhawk is, specifically, a person such as Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Perle, Quayle, Gingrich, and others (Limbaugh, O’Reilly) who took active steps to ensure that they would never see combat in the late 1960s and early 1970s who then spent the greater part of the 1990s through the early 2000s calling for combat (to be waged by other people) to enforce U.S. political positions. Clinton, for example, might be called a chickenshit, but he could not be called a chickenhawk.
It is not the civilian nature of a chickenhawk’s history, but their deliberate effort to avoid combat when the opportunity was provided them that marks their character. Civilian oversight of the military is not an issue and carries an odor of straw.
Technically, in the Bricker sense of the word, no one has.
Notice how RedFury cleverly left out a ‘c’?
That makes your complaint baseless.
If you’re going to bring up the military industrial complex debate as a counterexample, you need to be more careful to limit your outrage to the tree-hugging, draft dodging, peacnik subset of the left. Lots of lefties have served in the military after all.
This is a very good point. But somehow I don’t think they’re the ones throwing around the ‘chickenhawk’ label. Besides, the ‘chickenhawk’ thing is awfully hard to apply to people like John McCain and Colin Powell, both of whom supported the war and worked hard to help Bush achieve his support for it.
