Is leveling the chickenhawk charge against a bunch of strangers on a “rightwing” website wise? Because here’s “Patton,” doing just that in the comments to this post:
Hey cowards-
Casey Sheehan was a man. You are pussies.
Put up or shut up.
1-800-GO-ARMY
…And here’s File Closer, offering a carefully-articulated rejoinder, whose effectiveness I’ll allow you to judge for yourselves:
Actually, “Patton,†I decided to simply walk into the recruiter’s office, rather than call the number. This was back in 2003, after having served previously and gotten out in 2000. I was assigned to the 1st Cavalry Division, and later deployed to Iraq. Irony of ironies, Casey Sheehan’s battery (C 1/82) was attached to my battalion. The day he died fighting (4 April 2004), I and my men were in the same boat he was, rolling into the city, surrounded by hostiles. We watched a lot of our guys get hit, but we killed a lot more of them (on the order of 100-200 for every one they got of ours). We were outnumbered, in a strange place (we’d only been there a week), and tasting battle for the first time…yet we still prevailed. Sadly, Casey and six other great Americans didn’t make it back that day.
The other six were: SGT Eddie Chen, SPC Israel Garza, CPL Forest Jostes, SPC Stephen Hiller, SPC Robert Arsiaga, and SPC Ahmed Cason.
One of the hardest hit units was C Battery, 1/82 Field Artilley, Casey’s unit. They were ill-equipped and relatively undertrained for close fighting. No one ordered them to go out into Sadr City. They did anyway, including Casey, because they had comrades that needed help.
His mother’s antics are regrettable and unproductive. That’s all I’ll say about her, but I’m not quite done yet.
“Patton,†you call the other commenters in here “cowards†for not joining. Hmm, how civilian of you. I’ve never met any currently serving military man who feels that way. We soldiers do our jobs, do them damn well, and do them willingly. We appreciate when someone supports our efforts, even if it’s just a blog comment here and there. Who in hell are you to come in here and fling your “chickenhawk†bullshit around?
Unless you are the re-animated corpse of General Patton himself, you can take your accusations of cowardice and shove them deeply into your own ass. I’ve killed better men than you. Literally. Now go fuck yourself.
Wow. Bet that left a mark.
Me, I’m willing to make the following offer: I will accept as valid the chickenhawk argument from any person who agrees to support a Constitutional Amendment making military service a prerequisite for all who presume to shape foreign policy, up to and including the President, members of both the House and Senate, and all Federal Court justices. Either that, or from those who push to pass a Constitutional Amendment disbanding the military, which makes the question moot.
Short of that, I’d ask you to save your anti-democratic impulses for, say, campus speech codes or social engineering programs driven by the idea of proportionality—and allow the grownups to make the difficult choices that arise in the course of protecting the interests of our nation. Please.
But I won’t hold my breath.
****
update: The ubiquitously idiotic Mightcan contends that my argument calling for a Constitutional Amendment
“is classic misdirection and false equality. The chickenhawk accusation isn’t about qualifications…its about determining the support level for a position. Chickenhawks clearly press this war, claim its value, its worth, its righteousness. SO the chickenhawk accusation is: At what level will you decide to support this effort? What is the pain level? You’re of age, you meet military qualifications. You and the other 101st Fighting Keyboarders wrap this effort in the flag, in religion, in a leaden moral worth.
I wrap what in religion? Jesus. Do you even read this site before you launch into your pseudo-intellectual attacks on it?
The fact is, mightcan’s entire response is utter nonsense; the chickenhawk accusation doesn’t “ask” at what level one decides to support the war effort and then grade commitment accordingly; instead, it implies that unless one is willing to support the war effort by picking up a rifle, that person’s support is inauthentic and cowardly. It’s a ludicrous ad hominem based on a decidedly anti-democratic premise meant to silence supporters of our current foreign policy strategy. And as an argument, it simply does not exist in a vacuum; to support it is to support its logical underpinnings, and I’ve simply drawn those out in a way that even gimpheaded “thinkers’ like mightcan can understand them.
Interestingly, mightcan chooses not to take on File Closer’s arguments (or any of my previous arguments on the matter; evidently, he’s only really interested in what File Closer has to say about foreign policy provided that speech remains potential), because he’s not interested in debating the validity of the chickenhawk argument. Instead, he’s interested in playing games of rhetorical gotcha that are so remarkably feeble and transparent that they crumble under the weight of their own inveterate idiocy even as you’re reading them. In this case, mightcan wants to distinguish between equivalency and degree. But a willingness to turn our foreign policy over to ex-military (which is what my challenge implicitly calls for) is precisely an argument that attempts to gauge the degree to which defenders of the chickenhawk argument are willing to extend the logic of their position.
Perhaps mightcan should get out from behind the keyboard, quit his job, leave his kids behind, and put his ass on the line for the antiwar cause—y’know, make it a full-time gig, traveling from one antiwar event to another, until the mission is complete.
Test that whole “level of commitment” thing.
CRAWFORD OR BUST, MIGHTCAN!
Um.
BINGO?
“I will accept as valid the chickenhawk argument from any person who agrees to support a Constitutional Amendment making military service a prerequisite for all who presume to shape foreign policy”
Esentially you are repeating Robert Heinlein’s ideas from Starship Troopers.
The chickenhawk argument is an argument for military dictatorship, pure and simple.
What’s good for the goose is good for the gander – if the “objectively pro-fascist” left wants to argue that only those who serve in the military have the right to speak, then that must apply to them as well.
And that means Michael Moore, Cindy Sheehan, and the rest of the chickendoves can sit the hell down and shut the hell up.
I’d settle for just once having them say it to my face. Calling someone a pussy from behind a keyboard defines cowardice.
Actually, Heinlein allowed for non-military service. Of considerably longer duration, however.
And I never really liked the idea, anyway. Who gets to pay taxes, for instance? If I’m not allowed to vote, it sure as hell ain’t gonna be me…
Thanks, man. I would have missed that if you hadn’t posted it on the front page.
Like Spongeworthy, I would dearly LOVE to have one of those cowards say something to my face. You don’t have to “join up” to be willing to sacrifice for your country.
Well done, File Closer and thank you for your service. I’m always more amused than anything when this chickenhawk BS comes up around here, Jeff. There’s no surer way to stand out as a troll on this blog. It doesn’t take long here to realize that the argument won’t work and it doesn’t take much longer than that to realize that there are a lot of veterans commenting here.
filecloser,
First Team!!!!
WR95
fileclosed!
Well said.
On a wholly other note, about 15 minutes ago I spoke with my brother who is currently in Kuwait, soon to be in the greater Mosul area. He said the temperature when they got done zeroing their lasers last night was 103. At 10 PM.
But it’s a dry heat, right?
So anyway, my question is this:
If two great-grandfathers, both grandfathers, my dad (and dad-in-law), four uncles, six cousins and my kid brother all served (or are serving), and I wanted to enlist but failed the physical, am I still a chickenhawk? Or do I have to actually get the uniform before I can comment?
Ouch, well, I haven’t read any better response that the one you quoted above, Jeff, but…doesn’t this argument cut both ways?
I mean, if you seriously support the US out of Iraq, limiting or eliminating global influence by America and the curtailing of capitalism–pretty much the same goals as the terrorists–doesn’t the chickenhawk theory require the same obligations from the Left?
If you support anti-American policies, then prove it–go join Al’Queda, otherwise, you’re just a, wait for it..
“jihadihawk!!”
pussies.
A third alternative would be if they accept with equanimity the sobriquet of “chickeninsurgent” for failing to strap on the old Semtex belt and taking out a Zionist or Crusader.
Jihadihawk! Sounds wonderful and it’s fun to say! Cab Calloway could sing it, fer petes sakes!
Jihadi-hadi-hadi-ho!
Jihadi-hadi-hadi-hawk!
Quick, somebody notify the King of Sweden!
SB: she
Minnie, obviously…
File Closer’s argument is well chosen; I admire his service and mourn the death of his brothers-in-arms. T Marcell’s is not.
How boring that opposition to the war is deemed support for our enemies. Whatever the merits of the “chickenhawk” argument, it at least means something real for a select group of people: those who support putting other people’s asses on the line to support the war that they aren’t willing to fight for. (It is a term that meant something in the days of the draft when you actually had an obligation to serve. Now, not so much.) Those opposing the war are not asking anyone to do anything that they are unwilling to do themselves. Jihadihawk, my ass.
Those opposing the war are not asking anyone to do anything that they are unwilling to do themselves.
Yes, well, opposing the war doesn’t require one to do much of anything.
Jihadihawk…how about Surranderist? Or Proislamist?
Still, I prefer “traitor and slave.” Cause that’s what these “anti-war” useful idiots are.
Those Americans who are opposed to the war, who hailed the “insurgents” as Minutemen, who went to Iraq as human shields, who provide rhetorical cover for facists like Hussein, who advocate surrender and retreat emboldening our enemy, who interfere with military recruitment, are effectively siding with the enemy, are in alignment with our enemy’s goals, military and political.
They deserve our contempt. In addition they shouldn’t dish it out if they can’t take it themselves.
Charles, did you realize that your inscrutable command of the English language makes your post practically senseless? Indeed, I’d take a literary stab at your arguments if they had any real shape or form to aim at.
Of course not everyone who hates war is a jihadi. But you can’t have it both ways. ‘sides, Bushitler says you either with us, or with them. And jihadihawk is aimed at “with thems”, so why should you be offended?
Now, you’re either just cranky cuz you’re not in charge of the war, or you just don’t like war cuz it’s messy and unpredictible and America isn’t perfect, and who are we to judge, and idiots run the country, and OIL! Halliburton! Gollum!
…but the point is, jihadihawk is just as silly as an argument as is chickenhawk. Or did you miss the irony?
Because you know, the hypocrisy!
Whatever the merits of the “chickenhawk†argument, it at least means something real for a select group of people: those who support putting other people’s asses on the line to support the war that they aren’t willing to fight for.
Heh, how ‘bout this:
Whatever the merits of the
“chickenhawkâ€Âjihadihawk/chickendove argument, it at least means something real for aselectsubstantial group of people: those who support putting other people’s asses on the line to support the war that they aren’t willing to fight for.Those “other people’s asses” being innocent victims of Islamofascist terror in foreign countries, including Iraq, and future potential innocent victims in the United States if we don’t take the fight to the enemy. Oh, did I say future….?
Those opposing the war are not asking anyone to do anything that they are unwilling to do themselves.
Those supporting the war are not asking either. I support the mission our troops are currently undertaking, however, it seemed pointless and redundant to ask an all-voluntary military to go to war.
Whatever the merits of the “chickenhawk†argument, it at least means something real for a select group of people: those who support putting other people’s asses on the line to support the war that they aren’t willing to fight for. (It is a term that meant something in the days of the draft when you actually had an obligation to serve. Now, not so much.)
As this is portion is both non-sensical as well as self-refuting, I’ll ignore.
Although, really, if it no longers mean anything, why bring it up?
How boring that opposition to the war is deemed support for our enemies.
Here we are now, entertain us, huh? Firstly, boredom as an effective critique is not only illogical, its irrelevant.
Secondly, I am perfectly fine with anyone voicing cogent arguments against the war, however, those crying chickenhawk are, from what I’ve read, mostly those whose irrational hostility to Bush, specifically, and America, in toto, makes their motives suspect, their intentions recondite and their policies uncomfortably cnogruent to any objective characterization of what a enemy to this country might espouse.
Jason: A bumper sticker doesn’t get you an “a” for effort either.
I got the irony, Joan, but it isn’t much of an irony. If you want to pick as your opposition the people who scream “BusHitler” be my guest, but you’re going after the low-hanging fruit. (I confess – too many caveats in my own argument makes it difficult to parse but… I can’t have what both ways. Opposing the war and remaining American? Opposition to the war and respect for Iraqi democracy? Opposition to the administration and admiration for soldiers? You’ve got your own readability issues.)
Tongueboy: Saw that one coming, but it doesn’t scan. Much of the level-headed opposition to the war comes from people who think the war (a) won’t serve those goals and (b) works against them.
T Marcell: I don’t understand your first sentence. They volunteered to serve. Serving faithfully means executing whatever mission they are sent on. So what? That doesn’t mean you get to be more cavalier about the harm they face. The chickenhawk argument only remains (marginally, barely) relevant to the extent that it refers to people who actively avoided their service obligations (Bush, Cheney and (this one’s for you) Clinton). Warbloggers in an age of a volunteer military aren’t shirking anything as far as I can tell.
In any event I’m no more a fan of the chickenhawk school of argument than you are.
Jason: A bumper sticker doesn’t get you an “a†for effort either.
Of course not, but I’m not concerned about getting an “a,” and even less concerned with allowing those who toss around the term “chickenhawk” to do the grading.
I’m concerned about whether not a particular idea or policy is, on the whole, a good one. For example, if raising income taxes on say, the wealthiest 5%, to help pay off the deficit is a good idea, can only those in the wealthiest 5% support it?
When you apply this new standard to other policies, it’s idiocy becomes more readily apparent.
Charles,
My first sentence refuted your claim that opponents of the war are …not asking anyone to do anything that they are unwilling to do themselves and by implication, that those supporting the war are–hence the chickenhawk slur.
As for being more ‘cavalier’ about the harm they face, in the blogs I read, I haven’t encountered an attitude I would characterize as “cavalier” so much as an understanding of the nature of the War of Terror whose long-term, strategic goals in winning include remaking the despotism of the region, and a frustration with those who seem more inclined to attack Bush, those supporting the war, and the country as a whole rather than rationally disagree with the strategy undertaken.
I notice you are now limiting the chickenhawk sneer to only those in high-level positions in the Executive branch who have actual power to conduct war, which is fine, but as elected by the People, the Constitution makes him Commander-in-Chief, regardless of prior service, are you saying the Constitution should be amended?
WindRider95:
First Team, indeed!
Actually, Charles, Bush did serve. The left screamed themselves hoarse on the AWOL nonsense—along with trying to prop it up with third-rate forgery—and it still, deservedly, flopped. The National Guard is still service. And flying a jet-powered lawn dart is far more chancy than, say, so-called ‘Vietnam vet’ Ward Reilly kicking back on the ground in Germany for his entire enlistment.
Jihadihawk? Nah, I prefer ‘appeasenik.’ Most of ‘em aren’t deliberately pro-jihadi. They generally mean well, they’re just ill-informed, stupid, and/or delusional.
Charles, I will repeat Joan of Argghh’s (or is it Joan of Argghh!’s) question: Or did you miss the irony? Did it occur to you that those critically engaging the chickenhawk theme are also engaging those poor souls who seem incapable of “level-headed opposition to the war”? If you have a level-headed opposition to the war, we’re not talking about you. However, if your are a Cindy! campfollower, a raving Kossack, or a WhyDon’tYouJustMoveOn.org groupie spending every waking moment a)debasing the debate about the war and b)pushing the Democratic Party wagon over the electoral cliff, then we are indeed talking about you.
Oh, but we’re missing the nuance of the chickenhawk argument: only those in support of military action are required to have served; those who oppose such action must observe no such requirement.
File Close,
thanks for all.
Achillea,
I honestly don’t believe they are actively pro-jihad (although, “a million Mogidishu’s” and Chrissie Hynde’s, “I hope they bomb us”–you have to admit–skirts disturbingly close.)
What I meant was that support doesn’t compel participation, otherwise, it leads to absurd conclusions; whose manifestation in the chickhawk accusation is ultimately meant to quiet supporters of the war, thus to limit debate rather than expand it.
Analysis of the chickenhawk rambling in this detail gives it far more respect than is deserved.
I mean, there’s only one thing that has to be said about it, ahem. A demonstration, if you’ll allow…
“BUSH=HITLER36256: SHUT UP OR ENLIST, CHICEKNHAWK!!111
OHNOES:… you’re an idiot. I’m wasting my time talking to you. I shall ignore you for the remainder of my time here as you are clearly too stupid to engage in rational policy debate. I shall be over here talking to the grownups.”
That is all that needs to be said, really. Doesn’t matter if you’re BushHater3048 or a certain woman with a marine son, you deserve nothing but being called an ignorant child if you use the term chickenhawk. Please do not feed that idiotic idea further, okay?
Sometimes I feel like our viewpoint is the only rational one simply because the anti-war crowd is so polarized on the internet with every little kid spamming Kos or what not. We need intelligent anti-Iraq-war people voicing dissent to keep us PWers on our toes. Then again, since withdrawing our troops is not possible in any sane outlook, a lot of the critics get marginalized as well.
That and we can lump a lot of naysayers in with the anti-Bush press and Hollywood morons (Hat tip to Anchoress). So it is difficult to dig out the reasonable people some times.
What is interesting about this chickenhawk argument is that the ones screeching it absolutely forget the Don Rumsfeld flew fighters.
It is apparent this line of argumentation, as he would say, that to proclaim but that one must serve in the military is the only way for one to support the war is apt in Don Rumsfeld’s case and but that he, and only he in the administration, is allowed to move soldiers into the battlezone.
Cheers for DR, the MAN!
The leftists never admit ol’ Don is a seasoned fighter jock…or that Ashcroft’s son serves in the forces.
yeah yeah whatever. The chickenhawk arguement is put with a lot more style here
Oh, is style what you’re after?
Good. ‘Cuz I thought you people might actually believe your own bullshit.
Oh, that dave bones…what riot….
The left seem to be forgetting the Milblogs. These guys do a bit more than sit in front of a keyboard. Guess what? They DID sign up for Bush’s war!!!
I think the protestors and those against the war should also put their lives on the line too. It’s time for the Human Shield keyboarders to get out from behind the screen too!
Ok, RAH’s “Starship Troopers”:
you had to volunteer for Federal service in order to earn the franchise.
You volunteered for military service, Navy or Mobile Infantry.
If you flunked out of training and still wanted to serve, you could be sent anywhere to do anything. Building on Luna. Testing space suits on Pluto.
One final point: you couldn’t vote while still serving.
/Heinlein geek
-N. O’Brain
OHNOES wrote: “ We need intelligent anti-Iraq-war people voicing dissent to keep us PWers on our toes.”
Exactly.
Most of my friends “back home” didn’t support the Iraq invasion. Many of them had rational, logical reasons why they didn’t. Most came at the issue from a “misplaced priorities” perspective, which I can respect. None of them, not one, expressed any anger toward me when I announced I was, as a 31 year old man, going back into the Army with the express purpose of going to Iraq as a line infantryman. I even had one of them, at my going-away party, take me aside and tell me this (paraphrasing): “I don’t think this war is right. I think it’ll end badly, but if it has to be done, do it well. Kick some ass for me.”
I explained my rationale for wanting to go, and though I didn’t change anyone’s mind (nor do I really care to), we could at least understand each other’s positions. This is America; voicing opposition (or support, for that matter) of policy is one of our most basic rights. Trying to shut down the debate with ill-reasoned slurs is legal, and protected by the Constitution, but stone-dumb.
The “chickenhawk” thing is monstrously silly; as a soldier I’m not sure if what we need as a nation is our Army’s ranks flooded with mid-thirties ex-white collar workers who are more gifted with wordplay than swordplay. I say the pro-invasion word-warriors should continue to do battle on thier turf, spreading the word, changing some minds, and keeping the spirit of the nation focused.
The same goes if you are opposed; put your message out, debate the ideas, and try to change policy if you feel we’re moving in the wrong direction. Doing a snark drive-by in a blog’s comment section will not change hearts or minds, and it just may provoke a wrathful outburst from an otherwise reasonable man (guilty as charged!)
PS:
Mr. Goldstein, I apologize for indirectly keeping the “Cindy” non-issue alive here at your site by my lengthy post earlier.
I’d say CINDY! and her friends are doing a fine job of keeping it alive themselves, and so long as they are, they need to be challenged for their political positions—else it becomes nothing more than unrefuted propaganda.
So keep on saying your piece. Please.
File Closer
Your service is very much appreciated, as is your posted response. Stirred my American soul, so to speak.
My prayers to your fallen brothers, may their families find peace in the knowledge that the indomitable American spirit soars because their sons chose to fight for her light.
Jeff wrote: “So keep on saying your piece. Please.”
Will do, but I won’t clog up your bandwidth with my over-long observations. I’ve restarted my Iraq diary The File Closer thanks to this little exchange. I guess “Patton” did get someone to enlist! I’ve re-enlisted in the 101st Keyboard Brigade!
The closest I ever got to military service in my eligible years was doing yard work for a retired Army recruiter, who had been a rifleman in France in 1944. I didn’t volunteer for service, and I am quite at peace with that decision today. I’m not military, and not a wannabee either. I’m just a citizen who supports and appreciates our armed services. (Heck, you could argue that someone who didn’t serve has a greater obligation to support them, right?)
So if I, in my capacity as a free and informed citizen of this republic, conclude that the likely foreign policies of any likely Democratic president is likely to get me killed in a terrorist attack, then by golly I’ll oppose said policies and candidate, and support the elimination of said terrorists. I mean, why in the world should someone with no military background agree to let peaceniks disqualify him from the national debate? The jihadis will kill them as soon as me. Is it my fault the peaceniks are too addled to realize that?
I will give the pampered, privileged war cheerleaders this much – they certainly know how to pound those keyboards. So much testosterone! Ooh, it makes my knees weak.
What they also are very effective at doing is completely clouding the issue. Of course fat desk jockeys and blue haired grandmas can support the war even if they’re ineligible to fight. That is NOT the point of the chickenhawk accusation. That accusation stems from the fact that this war was started by a bunch of professional deferments, men who never had the balls to go to war, not one of them (except Powell who alone struggled to stop it), but who’ve lived lives of ease and luxury. Part of that luxury is allowing oneself to think of the flesh and blood men and women who fight for our country as mere chessmen to be scooted around a board testing out the geopolitical fantasies of power sick cowards.
Do you get it yet? This “president” created a needless war out of whole cloth, while making sure HIS kind – the rich and powerful – not only made no sacrifices, but benefited from huge new tax windfalls. It’s not only a lack of sacrifice, it amounts to war profiteering.
Now we see that our kids have died for the NOBLE cause of creating an Islamic state on the brink of almost certain Civil War. Women’s rights will be sent back to the Middle Ages and the Sunnis have been given even more reason to continue their attacks on the infrastructure & government. Are you advocating that US soldiers remain there to protect an Islamic republic against the minority it has ostracized? Is that what you want our kids to die for. If so, I don’t see where it’s an unfair argument to ask What would YOU be willing to sacrifice to make this utopian vision come true?Not money. Not your luxuries. Not your kids. Not yourself
The point, very simply, is this: IF you can’t explain to the American people, as Bush clearly can not any longer, WHY their kids should be killed to protect an Islamic republic that oppresses women and minorities…then your utter unwillingness to make any personal sacrifices becomes the living proof that exposes your amorality and hypocrisy.
Simple.
So because you are too fucking stupid to understand the reasons behind it, the war is a bad idea.
Hurry and go brush your teeth before you miss the bus.
Monique;
You keep using the word “kids”, just because you and you anti-war friends are infants doesn’t mean that the men and women in uniform are.
As it has been patiently explained before, many of us here have worn or are wearing our country’s uniform.
Now run along and play, the adults are talking.
Monique is exhibit 570,862 proving that to believe in the mainstream media’s Dowdified distortions causes blind ignorance and severe brain-damage.
It will never ever occur to Monique that journalists, editors, news anchors and producers have COMPLETELY CLOUDED THE ISSUES. Intentionally, I might add.
In Monigue’s world ‘fake but accurate’ is concidered rational thought.
Gotta hand it to Monique: a 180 proof Everclear distillation of Angry Left pro-defeat loopiness blended with a mix of gender and class issues.
Work “keyboard†and violence-connoting verb into same sentence – check
Snide reference to male hormonal rage – check
“Hey, I’m not talking about you! Really, I’m not! I’m talking about those other guys; ya know, the ‘rich’, the ‘powerful’, the ‘MAN’. Some gender and class bogeyman that isn’t you. Did I say ‘really’ yet?â€Â
“But why do you support (pick from following list):
1)Creating an Islamic state
2)Giving Sunnis (substitute “Muslimsâ€Â, “Arabsâ€Â, “Palestiniansâ€Â, “them†as needed) a reason to hate/attack/rebel against us/Shia/Kurds/all of the above)
3)Destroying women’s rights
check
Male power fantasies – check
President-in-quote-marks – check
Extra helping of gender and class stereotyping ladled on – check
Obligatory infantilization of our troops – check
Obligatory plea for the “President†to explain why, Why, WHY do our sob boys and girls have to DIE sniffle. – check
Did I miss anything?
Nope, I think you just about got them all, tongueboy. But, I think you missed the Powell exemption.
Kudos to Tongueboy for dead-on accuracy – the only thing (besides the Powell reference noted above) I think he missed was the infuriating condescending tone Monique and her ilk always seem to adopt when they’re “speaking truth to power” and re-educating us dinosaurs.
What happened to the American rightwing anyway? When did they become the kind of people who refuse to hold any of their leaders accountable? When did they decide it was “patriotic” to support a leader sending troops to battle without listening to either ground commanders or regional experts, without planning for the consequences of occupation, without an exit strategy, without even supplying them adequately? What kind of people hide behind ad hominen attacks and pettiness to refuse to stand up and defend what they claim are their principles?
You will note that every impotent fool on this board responded to Monique with either insults or the implication that her points were invalide merely because they’d been made elsewhere by others. Not one tried to refute the facts – particularly the fact that having gone through a rotating Swedish buffet of war rationales we are now coming to the realization that our troops have died to install an Islamic republic, to create a Civil War, and to empower Iran while bankrupting and humiliating our country. Republicans no longer feel they have to refute facts – they are all little acolytes of Rove who believe that insults and ridicule are more appropriate than honesty and accountability in matters affecting our national security.
You call yourselves patriots? You are disgraceful. All indications are that support for this war has tanked irretrievably at the same time that Bush is being perceived as untrustworthy and disconnected from reality. Deal with it, wimps. You’re losing, and your continuous sarcasm is about as effective as Bush’s whistling in the dark that the chaos in Iraq represents progress.
And, as if on cue, an example appears.
Monique made no points; she merely repeated absurd assertions that deserve only ridicule.
Just like yours.
I hope you guys aren’t too surprised to find your president’s approval ratings falling through the floor, your hate radio kings losing ratings, your standard bearers getting arrested and indicted, and support for this war just about evaporating.
Your schtick is played, boyos. Tell me are 60% of Americans now traitors, for not keeping their eyes closed about the lies their government told them?
What do you gain by demanding that ALL Americans blindly follow your dimwitted mediocrity of a president, when their reason and their gut tell them they’ve been had? Do we still have the right to think for ourselves in this country? Or is that now treason also?
Seeing as you all support sending troops to die “for democracy”, why are you so against its being practiced here at home?
Y’know, Jeff was right – people really are posting without having read through the thread.
Democracy’s working fine here. You’re just mad that the results aren’t to your liking.
Please show us some examples of thinking; all we’ve seen here is emotional rants, hand-wringing, and lies about lies.
Remember, folks, it’s all about THE SINCERITY!
This might come as a shock to you, but I don’t give a rat’s ass about the President’s popularity. I don’t like popular music, I don’t watch popular TV shows or movies, and I read very few popular books. I find the vast majority of all things popular to be fantastic, insipid tripe designed to be spoon fed to unimaginative dimwits, just like what passes for a platform from the Democratic Party.
And I am sorry if you are offended by my lack of tact, but being constantly called a spineless sadistic ghoul tends to make me a bit touchy.
tw: club, I don’t belong to any of them, either, grrrrrrr
I qualify as a chicken hawk. I am willing to stop talking about supporting the war as long as all those that oppose the war and have not served will also shut up. Somehow I am not worried about having to suppress my opinion.
Nolan, our reaction to Monique’s post reveals a subtext of which you may not be aware. Many war supporters are quite simply tired of seriously engaging war detractors who:
1. Construct elaborate strawmen in lieu of thoughtful argument *cough*Nolan’sfirstparagraph*cough*
2. Bleat on about how Bush-needs-to-make-a-case-for-his-war, rather that taking the time to read the bi-partisan Congressional resolution that does precisely that or to read the almost innumerable speeches, interviews and press conferences that he and other administration officials have given that do precisely that. I’m not sure you realize how insulting it is to be expected to believe that because you don’t agree with the war rationale, that the argument has never been made. Or to put it more bluntly, Reading Is Fundamental.
3. Make assertions of “fact” that are, in fact, mere assertions *cough*NolanandMonique*cough*.
I don’t use profanity lightly, but we are fucking done wasting our time arguing in circles with folks who are either dim bulbs or are not arguing in good faith. The only rational and appropriate response in those instances is ridicule and mockery. And finger-in-the-face lecturing ain’t gonna make the pain stop, either. Get used to it.
Seeing as you all support sending troops to die “for democracyâ€Â, why are you so against its being practiced here at home?
Nolan, do you mean the democracy of polls or the democracy of elections? Your post seems to indicate that you are enamored of the democracy of polls. Too bad for you that the democracy of elections is what really matters.
Tongueboy has provided one reasonable explanation why Nolans/Moniques are in melt-down mode….they “are enamored of the democracy of polls” which should noted have endlessly been shoved down their throats by the very forces determined to prove America under a Republican adminstration is an evil military industrial complex imperializing the entire world all for oil.
It is no wonder that when Gore lost in 2000 it was such a shock to the body politic of poll pushers.
Actually, taking apart one of these rants is quite amusing.
Nolan, when was that golden age of “rightwing accountability?”
Well, Nolan, since none of those things happened, it isn’t hard.
You mean like the ones screaming “chickenhawk?”
Speaking of ad hominem, you threw of ‘em in there. Nice.
What is it with leftists and their sexual fixations? A little projection, perhaps?
So much whining, so little substance. I’d like like to point out that HillaryCare would have cost more than the whole war effort combined – so if “bankrupting” the country is your fear, run like hell from the Democrats.
Heck, we’re spending a smaller portion of GDP defense than in the 1980s.
Another ad hominem attack. Yawn. At least he didn’t question our patriotism. I mean, you’re not allowed to question patriotism – that is totally off limits.
Whoops, so much for that taboo. Hey, can we question your patriotism, or does that only cut one way, you defeatist twit? (Gosh hurling insults is fun).
Note that this says nothing about the moral or legal reasons for war. Popularity is apparently all that matters.
Oh, the bombast, the braggodocio! Why it’s like Mike Moore’s “Payback Tuesday” where we won back the Senate.
More, please.
I’m still waiting for my oil checks.
I served in the Marines for 8 years, but I’m willing to bet that I still don’t qualify to the Monque / Nolan robots because my job was aviation electrician and not “battlefield commander”. The fact that the 8 years I was in there was relatively little action (Bosnia was happening, but my unit didn’t get sent) and since I didn’t actually get shot at (near death by aircraft doesn’t count) that probably means I don’t have a valid opinion.
And notice how none of the moonbatshitcrazyfuckers coming in here will answer File Closer’s remarks but instead attack everyone else personally. Why do I get the feeling that, since FC didn’t actually, you know, die that his opinion doesn’t count to them either?
T Marcell: I honestly don’t believe they are actively pro-jihad (although, “a million Mogidishu’s†and Chrissie Hynde’s, “I hope they bomb us”–you have to admit–skirts disturbingly close.)
True, that’s why I qualified it with ‘most of ‘em’ not being that way. And I didn’t mean to imply that you felt that they were. I’ve just found it necessary to make it abundantly plain whenever even the teeniest, tiniest hint of it arises that, RWDB though I may be, I don’t support the ‘liberals are all anti-American pro-terrorist yellow dog traitors!’ argument.
I agree with ONOES and FC. We need reasonable anti-war lefties to keep us on our intellectual toes, so we don’t turn into a bunch of bobbleheads. But we also need to keep an eye out for extremism on our own side, so us reasonable pro-war righties can keep the /other/ side thinking.
I’m a wingnut chickenhawk, married to a poor, brainwashed, ibecillic, redneck child who is a murdering, trigger happy, Jeffery Dahmer type baby killer with had no other options. (But they support him!!!)and I’m supposed to drag my children down to the recruiters office and “send them off to DIE!” (and they’ll support them too!)
Makes me just wanna swim nekkid in all those warm fuzzies..yanno?
tw: enough, as in I’ve had enough of this bullshit and I’m not gonna play nice with others anymore.
“Deal with it, wimps. You’re losing, and your continuous sarcasm is about as effective as Bush’s whistling in the dark that the chaos in Iraq represents progress.” (From Nolan’s post)
Seems to me the bottom line is that if we wimps lose, we ALL lose, BIGTIME! I don’t think you anti-war people quite understand that. You’re trying to make an intellectual argument out of a fact of what is now our lives (post 9/11). If we, as Americans, don’t stay the course that’s been set, we may as well hang it all up!
Nolan, as long as you represent the median IQ of “our” opposition, I remain confident that the GOP will prevail.
excuse me, but don’t most wars get fought over
A: command over testosterone-driven hierarchy heigtening search for honour and prestige?
Aa: Does the winning team have to prove it’s the most violent team; can the most violent team call itself a winner
B: retaliations perceived as offensive enough to escalate these diabolic staple feeds for fundamentalities?
Bb: aforementioned ‘reasoning’ taken as excuse to appropriate that which the targeted party doesn’t deserve/know how to use, etcetera?
C: another vicious circle: scarcity brings on the misconduct of war which causes even more of them.
Logic dictates that allowing ourselves the luxury to stop wars might leave us with enough time on our hands to start abundance; to open rock isn’t just to create or shape space, but time too.
turn putting life to death around into feeding life with death; feeding death into life is ever so easy; turn war around into raw ..
sprinkle the right sort of dust (most any fresh rockdust will do into a summer puddle big enough to last a few days and presto: reduced oxides, hydrocarbons at the humble end of a laaaaarge loooong bewildering strange trip of a chain and fresh oxygen bubbles peeping out of the freshly slipperizing stuff of life.
I don’t know how much more clearly I need to say this; perhaps Cindy Sheehan’s son, as his death was approaching, would have grasped the concept if he and the other six of his pals who died could have been afforded a time out somehow and by some miracle read one of the umpteen times I strewed this message around (including soldier’s blogs); the company killed hundreds that day by the way according to a colleague of his who is quoted on proteinwisdom.com (this last section was stuck on a blog called hyperstition).
Thanks, FileCloser. As a late thirties (darn near forty) year old who they wouldn’t take due to age, I’m glad you’re able to serve still.
For those of us who are a bit older – and I’m being serious – there is the Coast Guard Auxiliary. They take volunteers and you help the Coasties with the non-military, non-law enforcement part of their missions. I’m in, it’s fun, and I’m serving, doing what I can. I strongly encourage anyone out there to look it up.
Not a CH argument, more of a recruitment pitch.
Word: Shine, as the CH argument can be placed where the sun don’t.
Major kudos to Mikey – the Coast Guard is the most under-appreciated of all the services, and they could most definitely use the help suggested.
Piet,
Posting your incomprehensible, stoner-type ramble for the kids back at the dorm may get you some nookie there but here we call that kind of thing “bullshit”.
And “I don’t know much more clearly I need to say this” is the height of irony.
Get some milk and a box of Little Debbies and sleep it off, man.
Man…great read. Especially liked the referrence to Heinlein. I believe he also wrote the passage “never underestimate the power of human stupidity.” After my 21 year Air Force career I have to agree with him after reading the vast amount of drivel coming from the jihadihawk/chickendove …anists.
Lets go through it one more time.
1. Saddam was a bigtime supporter of terrorism.
a. Salman Pak terrorist training camp.
b. Abu Nidal retirement home
c. First WTC Attack.
d. Murderer of Leon Klinghoffer retirement home in Baghdad.
e. Al Zarawi was already in Iraq, coordinating with Al Queda.
f. Paid 25,000 dollars to families of Arab terrorists who killed Jews.
g. Attempted to kill ex-US President G.H.W.Bush.
2. Saddam had WMD programs
a. Killed Kurds with chemical weapons.
b. Killed Iranians with chemical weapons.
c. Armistice from first gulf war promised to get rid of his WMD.
d. Never did show that he got rid of them. If he had them, and didn’t get rid of them, where are they? Best bet=Syria.
3. Saddam was in violation of Gulf War Armistice agreement.
a. Fired on US and allied aircraft patroling no fire zone.
b. Murdered Kurds with WMD
c. In return for the first gulf war armistice, he agreed to certain limitations on Iraqi sovereignity. When he violated that agreement, he returns back to the prearmistice state.
How long would it be before Saddam passed some chemical weapons to terrorists? How long would you wait? Not moving against him would be like letting a rattlesnake live in your bathroom.