Whose commitment on this board did I call into question?
I’m still not conceding your point.
To the extent that the information provided in speeches is incomplete, I think we have to assume people are filling in the missing pieces on the basis of what is generally known.
“Wider”?? Wider than what??
How wide??
Neither in that speech nor in its context was there the suggestion that Paris, Rome, Berlin, or Vienna would fall if we didn’t act.
And you’re still overlooking my second criterion: was it a safe assumption that existing American military strength would be more than sufficient to deal with the problem? (A. Yes.)
So either come up with a counterargument or quit your plaintive whining. I conceded to John because I had no fucking rebuttal to his point. In your case, you have no fucking point.
Unless you respond to my posts 137 and 139 with arguments rather than whining, I’m done with you in this thread. All you’ve got is bullshit spinning of the debate, rather than actual participation anymore that I can see.
I’ve been a YR off and on for years. You can stay in all the way to age 40.
You conflate action and commitment, so again, what are your actions?
I agree.
Fuck-off, sleazeball. The attack the messenger rebuttal is way too lame even for a dipshit like you.
From The Guardian:
High-profile air strikes ‘killed only civilians’
That good enough for you, lardass? Or are you going to keep playing The Three Monkeys?
How long a line can you form by yourself?
There are a quarter of a million College Republicans. (I haven’t been able to find out how many Young Republicans there are.) Right now, the enlistment targets are what, 70-80K a year? (I’m doing this off the top of my head; I looked 'em up night before last.) Maybe if 10% of the College Republicans enlisted into the Army each year, the Army recruiters wouldn’t have to go to heroic (or anti-heroic, all too often) lengths to recruit enough new soldiers each year, and maybe they could do a bit less in the way of stop-loss, and actually let people out when their three years are up, and not make soldiers still suffering from post-traumatic stress go back into war while their heads are still messed up.
Yeah, that’s what I’d like to see.
Do I want to see every one of them sign up? No. But supposing the hole in my argument that John pointed out didn’t exist, I’d expect them to jump in, in enough quantity to really make a difference in terms of the stresses on the force, and maybe be able to increase the size of the force now, rather than after this is all over and it doesn’t matter anymore.
And that isn’t pointing the finger at any particular person. You can twist it that way, but I didn’t say, “Lucianne’s not-so-little boy, Jonah Goldberg, should get his ass into the Army.” Let alone say a similar thing about any poster here.
Oh, you can make it point at yourself, by holding yourself up as a member of the group I’m talking about, but that is your free choice. Not mine. And accordingly, it puts no obligation on me to return the favor.
Besides, my original point still stands, and forgive me for shouting, because I think this is important: persons shouldn’t have to morally qualify to debate an issue on this board.
That’s not a board rule, but that’s my story and I’m sticking to it.
I agree with you.
They shouldn’t have to morally qualify to support a war either, which is really the point I was making there.
I’ve responded to this twice already (:headdesk:)
IOW, I conflate them if the consequences of inaction are sufficiently apocalyptic.
That’s three times now. You really are smart enough to grasp this idea, if repeated three times.
Never said that they did, as a general rule. See above.
But in WWII, think it would have been OK for a healthy, single male in his early 20s who wasn’t an elderly aunt’s sole support (or some such) to “support the war” by putting a “support the troops” magnet on his car, or would you have considered that an empty gesture on his part?
(I know - he almost surely would have been drafted. But assuming by some fluke he wasn’t.)
Guess I’m joining this argum… uh … discussion(?) extrememly late but it seems I should be a part of it considering I’m one of the board’s more vociferous critics of chickenhawks. (Heck, I made a recent posting to a John Wayne thread).
Anyway, I think even at this stage of the thread, it seems some folks don’t agree with RTFirefly’s OP about chickenhawks being hypocrtical? Well, I sure as Hell agree.
RTFirefly - Good analogy about the WWII war “supporter”.
Just curious. Is it simply an oversight, or do you not think Democrats should enlist?
So you think the chickenhawk argument is a false one, then. Excellent. I agree. I don’t see what was so tough about that, nor why you said you didn’t care before and it’s suddenly important now, but whatever.
I’ll write it in stone.
Neither do I. I do, however, think they should be as *willing * to go themselves as they are to send others, no matter who actually does go. If a war isn’t worth your own life, is it really worth anyone else’s? I do expect that an adult will make that judgment before asserting a conclusion. Do you disagree?
Of course not. But a position taken on a moral issue should be morally consistent. Hypocrisy is and has always has been and always damn well should be mentionable on this board and anywhere else. The more important the moral issue, the more important it is to identify hypocrisy in any arguments expressed. Is that not obvious?
Elvis:
Since your post was lauded by a couple of others, I probably should address it. I note immediately, that you did not address my actual arguments point by point. This is fair since I only asked you about the one specific point and you addressed it thoroughly.
If you’re willing, I might be interested in hearing a point by point rebuttal of that earlier post from you.
I’m sure many of them do. There is one important distinction, though. Having weighed the risks and the characteristics they have still chosen to be in the military.
I agree that this is the weakest part of my argument. I am not too old to die. On the other hand those 40 and 50 year olds are not new recruits. They are career people, who are extremely well-trained and experienced in what they do, and who’s training I could not duplicate without the decades of effort they have put into their experience.
That’s an excellent question. They Reserves and the Guardsmen are different because they have chosen to accept the risk. I do not. I respect their choice, but mine is different. I used to like to ride motorcycles. I used to smoke. I used to engage in other physically risky behavior. When I had children I stopped doing all that because I feel that I have an obligation to be there for them as children and survive to be there father and support them through college, both financially and as a parent on the scene.
For the first four and a half years of my life I saw my father, and he saw me only on a few short occasions, because he was in the service. I understand the sacrifice. As a child, I lived it. I don’t want my children to live it. It’s also the pact that my wife and I made. She would not have had children with me if I was going to be in the service and the chance of getting called away.
Other people make other choices, perhaps some for patriotism, perhaps some for the monetary benefits, and, I guess they accept the risks and the benefits.
Yes. That’s what I said.
Yes they are.
Sure. I would go willingly if drafted. I would even go willingly without the draft if I felt the situation was desperate enough that my presence was required and my contribution would be necessary to a degree that would outweigh the sacrifice my family suffer.
I do not cheer the death of thousands of other people. It’s ugly of you to suggest that.
No. I don’t think they are. But my personal circumstances were only one part of the argument I made. I hope you’ll engage the rest point by point.
I do not find it to be that black and white of an issue.
Right off the bat there are the obvious issues.
- If you have already served, especially in a war, you have done your duty.
- If you cannot serve due to physical disability or foolish exclusionary laws.
I cannot personally complain if Scylla or some other chooses to support the war and argue in favor of it, but also chooses not to serve. So I guess I do not agree with you. An extreme case, if France suddenly invaded the UK, I would be willing to join to help them. If South Korea was invaded by China, I would not be willing to join back up, but I would support the government to fight China and defend South Korea. This is why we have a volunteer military. I prefer it to the drafted service of Vietnam era where few got a choice and the sons of the rich and important could be shuttled out to other duty.
I mentioned earlier I might hate Bush & Cheney more than most. That is because in my book they are draft dodgers, and I thought there was no worse crime for a True Republican. Of course watching Cheney lecture McCain about the use of torture proved me wrong. Cheney is capable of evils I thought no modern American politician could be capable of.
Scylla should be able to consider a war worth fighting without being in the service himself.
Jim
Maybe I haven’t been clear enough. The point is willingness to do what your view, if put in place, requires others to do. The *decision * that the war would be worth one’s life is the nub of it. Whether or not one *actually * goes, or even *could * go, is a side issue.
Scylla, I did address all of your “points”, even if you haven’t been able to face up to what it shows you.
Now, have you *really * tried to digest what I told you? Are you *really * suggesting that military lives are more easily spent than civilians’ or even reservists’ just because they made the decision to join up? That seems to be your position.
The decision to be willing to give one’s life for one’s country is not arrived at lightly. Their offer to the country, in my view at least, entails an obligation on the country’s part not to waste the offered lives, not to spend it on an unnecessary war based on lies, not to bungle a war once started. The country, cheered on by a large part of its citizenry, has not met that obligation, and cannot redeem it with further wastage of lives offered so honorably.
I don’t think your opinion here is very good.
It shows me that when I had children I decided there were my #1 priority. I’m proud of that, Elvis.
But no. You did not address all my points. You quoted one small portion. You’re incorrect. No matter, it’s easily corrected let me quote you the points you missed, and you can decide if you wish to respond. From post 84:
Then you’re not reading very well. That is not my position.
How many Dems buy into Bush’s view of the war in Iraq? I’d like to see roughly the same proportion of that group enlisting too. Not that anyone would notice if they did.
Joe Lieberman’s a bit too old to enlist, btw.
Could you care to state what the “chickenhawk argument” is, in 100 words or less? Maybe that would lend some clarity your claim here.
Mind if I butt in? But of course not, right?
Gladly. Even if my name’s not Elvis and can’t sing for shit.
So? You’ve done likewise and have obviously come to the conclusion that it’s far safer to cheer them on from the sidelines.
You’ve got to be fooling yourself. How long has it taken the insurgents in Iraq to “train” themselves into formidable nemesis to the so-called "most powerful force the world has ever seen? You know, as in your infamous Big Dog theory. Many/most of them were civilians just like you or I prior to your bogus and immoral invasion. And, I might add, most of them weren’t superhumans such as yourself. Run fifty miles? Hell, I doubt most of them could walk more than one or two.
So, in other words, you’re pussywhipped and choose to wave your pom-poms from the safety of your living room. Yep, just like the Kanadianbacon, Stones, two of the toughest, meanest, SOBs one could ever encounter on-line.
Guess you don’t think many/most of those dead and maimed soldiers had the same thoughts and ideals about the future (and their wife’s and children’s) as you do.
Reckless motherfuckers, huh? Nope, nope, that can’t be it. Perhaps many/most of them had no other choice if they wanted to advance in life and better the future of their loved ones. Too bad about 30,000 of them are either dead or disabled for life. And for what? So you can keep your promise to your wife? Please. Grow a pair. They might impair your superpowers (as in bothering you when you run and/or hunt for days. Quite a change from the glass marbles you currently own) but they might make a man out of you yet. Highly doubtful if you ask me judging by all the shit you’ve spewed here throughout the years.
Hate to break it to you, Scylla, but you’re only a legend in your own mind.
Indeed. Precisely why you’re a narcissistic, windbag. For fuck’s sake, it ain’t that different to shoot a helpless deer that it is an insurgent. Except, of course, that unlike deers, insurgents can shoot back.
Which brings me back to your “training” bullshit. Great aim, familiar with guns and killing, superathlete, SDMB’s (along w/Stones) toughest dude…dude, you’re ready to ship out with hardly a week of boot-camp. I mean, think about it, if the way you project your super-macho image here is anything close to reality you won’t need to fire a shoot – Iraqis will simply shit their pant and drop their weapons just seeing such an awesome specimen come their way.
No wonder you rather wave the pom-poms from the sidelines. Not the sort of future you’d envision for yourself, is it? :rolleyes:
And having listened to your President and many other experts on the matter, you don’t think it is? US army reserve a ‘broken’ force.
Come on, once again, grow some yarbles and acknowledge Elvis is correct. It’s all about saving “your own ass*.” And yes, every fuckin’ post you make in support of this genocide (including the one I misinterpreted. Though you had a bout of sanity) is a cheer for the death of others.
Upwards of 7000,000 humans by now – all sides included.
Think about that. And the try to get a good night’s sleep afterwards.
Holy shit! There’s more of your crap to rebut? Surely you won’t mind if I pass. After all, what are you going to do? Hire some goons to do what what you’re so obviously afraid of doing yourself?
Best you keep running. Amongst many many others, that’s yet something else you claim to exceed at.
Keep up the good fight. I honestly hope you don’t fall pray to typing injuries.
Asterisk missing from last post:
*****For the life of me, I couldn’t type “sweet” when referring to another dude’s (likely hairy) ass. Not that I make any sort of judgment on those who do.
Do you think you have to buy into Bush’s view of the war to enlist? I would hope that whether or not somebody disagrees with the war they still might think that serving in the military is a worthwhile thing to do. I’d also think that some of those who might think the war was a very bad idea still might think it’s important to succeed now that we are there. Surely there are other reasons as well. “Supporting the troops, not the war” is something of a catch phrase. I was kind of hoping that it might have teeth.
Could you care to state what the “chickenhawk argument” is, in 100 words or less? Maybe that would lend some clarity your claim here.
[/QUOTE]
I think the “chickenhawk argument” is that people who favor the war, are eligible to enter the military, and do not, are hypocrites, and possibly cowards, and possibly don’t deserve to have an opinion or state it, are contemptible, etc…
The degree to which the person wishes to take the argument is of course up to them.