Kilmeade - It’s gonna get worse for him
Published by Mike Stark July 13th, 2006 in Uncategorized
Brian Kilmeade is on the right… What a fine soldier he would make, right? And with so much to fight for - three kids, a beautiful wife, a cushy job in the land of the free… well, you’d think he’d be all about defending what he believes in.
Or not.
Maybe he likes seeing his wife and kids every day. Maybe he wants to live to be old and see grandkids. In that case, it’s much better for other people to fight in the war he claims to believe is so necessary for America to remain the land of the free…
That, my friends, is cowardice.
That’s why we’re gonna force him to answer the question. It’s a simple question, and it’s got a simple answer - but Brian doesn’t want to give it because it would force him to look at his elitist and narcissistic life and admit that for all his success, he’s a hypocrite and a coward.
The question: Why won’t you fight in a war you claim to believe in? A war you’ve said is our nation’s “highest moral calling”?
The answer: Because I make a lot of money, I have a wonderful family and I want to live to enjoy all of that. Let the rednecks, ghetto-dwellers and idiots fight for me - I can’t be bothered. Besides, Iraq is not a real threat anyway - if it was, I might decide that, as a man, I do need to protect my family… But you know, I have to say what I have to say so my sugar-daddy, Rupert Murdoch, will continue to pay me the big bucks.
Well, the truth is, I was one of the troops Brian has decided to pay lip service to on so many occasions. I’m not going to let him get away with this… too many have died, had their testicles blown off, lost legs, eyes and/or brain function. And it continues because people like Brian Kilmeade are patsies for a corrupt administration.
I’m going to try to ask the question in as many ways as I can until he answers it or visits Walter Reed with me.
Search
Login
Donations Accepted
You can donate through PayPal in two ways:
Make a one-time donation for the amount entered below and you're billed once, that's it.
Make a recurring monthly donation that bills you monthly for the amount entered below.
Subscribe
Posts- Comments
- Podcast
Little bribri will never join. He would soil himself and someone would be having to change his diaper all the time!
Just listen to his stupid reactions to some fox reporter getting shot at by what looks like the isreali’s today. You can hear some of the shots.
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Fox_crew_shot_at_in_Israel_0713.html
You put it perfectly: why should the rich, old, white republicans and conservatives get to send the poor, young, minorities off to die?
Killmeade, PAB (punk-ass bitch).
Alpha, thanks for the link. I love that look on Brian’s face when he’s told that reporters are shot at even with flak jackets that say “press” on them. That bit at the end was great
“Bad guys will shoot at anything”
Brian “But, it’s Israel?”
Like an entire worldview came crashing down around his head.
Mahybe somebody was just attacking the liberal media bias, similar to Cheney’s recent direct approach to tort reform while quail hunting.
Brian Kilmeade is probably the emptiest suit I’ve ever seen on TV. There’s absolutely nothing going on back there.
Why aren’t ALL of these right wing nuts taken to task about not being in the armed forces? All of these jokers (O’Really, Hannity, Bortz, Savage, et cetera) have had the opportunity to serve, but instead elected to NOT. Kilmeade is a convenient target (and deserves to be) since he’s still in the age range to qualify, but let’s not forget that the cowards that spoke most loudly for the war are sitting back here safely in their posh homes.
Also- Mike, why don’t you hit Kilmeade with the question “When your children come of age are you going to encourage them to be infantrymen if we are still at war?”
Looks like they have caller ID. At the end of the call, “the judge” says something about you calling from 3 different numbers.
With the age moved up to 42, I bet lots more RW talkers are eligible to enlist. Anyone know who else makes the 42 and under age restriction?
http://209.157.64.201/focus/f-news/1640350/posts
It looks like Rusty Humphries is 40.
After reading his article about his father (who was Killed in Vietnam), I’m sure his father would have enlisted long before now. I wonder what Rusty is waiting for?
This is a very touchy subject though. I’m certain that Rusty Humphries has done many things for the troops.
I guess it all comes down to those that are big cheerleaders for the use of force, but when it’s their turn, they “have other priorities”.
it seems conservatives dont get the chickenhawk argument (perhaps willfully), because when responding to it they always say, “so only people in the military are allowed to talk about the military/foreign policy in general?”. correct me if im wrong, but the argument only applies to people who are eager to start/support wars of choice. thats the “hawk” part. the argument isnt that they arent allowed to talk about the military, its that they dont understand what war is (to be clear, neither do i, but ive heard it sucks a lot, and stories are painful enough to convince me), and so are cavalier about “collateral damage” and the like. thats what resonates about the chickenhawk argument for me, the fact that they dont value other people’s lives.
obviously brian kilmeade is a coward. so am i, but im not also eager to send other people to war. thats the part of the argument thats important, and which i think sometimes gets overlooked.
i dont think anyone can honestly say the iraq war was necessary. it was a choice, and could easily have been avoided. we chose to kill hundreds of thousands.
war is always a sacrifice and should be avoided whenever possible. after haditha, conservatives said ‘well this isnt important cause it happens in all wars’ (remember oreilly and malmady?). but, doesnt that line of reasoning place the blame on the people who start wars in the first place? it is illuminating that those people (bush et al) have never been to war, and have never seen a haditha probably.
that sort of mindset might explain the administration’s support for torture as well.
Well said Orihd. Kilmeade just showed every fiber of his sheltered, blue blood being in that clip. He has no business having a national post to comment on conflict and of course war that involves artillery, violence, death, etc. because he’s so f*cking far out of his element.
I sense that even a coward like Bill O’Reilly at least understands to some degree, maybe in a historical sense, war - he just has a dyed in the wool arrogance about it, even though he won’t participate. But Kilmeade has obviously been sheltered his entire life. It really did kind of look like his worldview took a kick in the jaw there for a split second. Retard.
Mark,
Have faith. You are getting to those two ballless bastards aka. Brian and the Judge.
Preach on.!
I have emailed several conservatives on various issues and only a couple of them have had the cajones to write me back. When they cut you off in mid sentence you know you are getting to them.
Brian
Mike,
Sorry typo on my last response.
I remember flipping through the channels the morning of 9-11 (uh, excuse me: “September THE eleventh”), and I caught a perfectly representative segment on Fox News that I’m pretty sure involved Kilmeade.
Kilmeade, or whoever the Fox reporter was, was trying to find people on the streets to talk to and get their initial reactions to the explosions and the chaos. At one point, he buttonholed a Hasidic-looking man (hat, sidelocks; but I apologize for any cultural illiteracy), who told him that he saw the explosions and he ran towards them.
Trying to anticipate his sentiment, Kilmeade asked, “… to check things out?”
And the nice man said, in an apparent tone of disgust and horror: “NO!!!!–To HELP!!!”
Kilmeade, or whoever the Fox twit was, didn’t seem to understand that.
He’s too pretty to go to war…check out those muscles. Biceps courtesy of 24 Hour Fitness, body waxing & Man-Tan by Klinique Salon & Spa.
At least he has the moral justification to urge young people to join in the noble, worthy cause of a 5K fun-run, right?
You should go on drinking liberally tour, teaching “techniques in calling all wingnuts” for free beers. (I would gladly let you borrow my couch.)
I have two kids. I am against the Iraq War. I was 41 in 2001. I would have signed up. I tried to sign up then but the age limit then was 37 IIRC.
You have it nailed perfectly. He can say what he wants just as we all can except it does seem strange that he would supposedly believe in something so much but he is not willing to go and fight for it. What a little coward.
Someone please provide the number that Kilmeade is wearing. I need specific confirmation exactly which runner he is. Thanks.
his number is 1840… google his name and you can find lots of other pics also…
This thread is currently “uncategorized.”
Suggest creating a category like “chickenhawks.”
We’ll be seeing a lot more of them, now that the maximum age limit (no prior service) is age 42 and under. [You must be sworn in before your 43rd birthday.]
Mike, I just came across your blog, and I notice you seem to mention a single point quite often; that “if you believe we should go to war, why aren’t you fighting it yourself?”. I don’t see that as a valid argument. Don’t you have any concept of the functions in a society?
Let me ask this question: Do you believe that Americans have the right to be safe in their own neighborhoods?
Now, I’m going to assume you’d answer that with “Of course, stupid.” To which I’d reply “So why aren’t YOU out on the streets fighting crime, keeping people safe?”
Of course, I’m no idiot (despite what you may think already). I know there’s a perfectly good group of people whose function in society is to enforce the law and uphold the peace (those who are paying attention would know I’m obviously talking about the police). So what has this got to do with the war on Afghanistan/Iraq/North Korea/Wherever? That’s where the defense forces come in. Most of us rational thinkers believe in the right to be safe on the streets, so we have the police force(s) to do so; if we want/need to go to war, we have the defense forces to do so.
It’s not only irrational to believe we should all do ourselves what we believe in, but in this case, it’s unfeasible too. Have you considered the time and cost it would take to train troops? Do we really need to recruit Joe American, who just happens to have a political opinion, into a job for which he isn’t prepared nor qualified for? Do the defense forces need him? Have you forgotten that defense forces have certain physical requirements, which may make it impossible to recruit all those who believe we should fight a war?
And then there’s the plausibility of applying that concept with rule utilitarianism. If you believe we have the right to clean water, should it be up to you to provide it yourself? If you want to eat, should you have to produce your own food? What are the implications of a society where everyone should act upon what they believe in themselves? Isn’t what you’re suggesting counter-productive to the whole concept of society?
Please note that I’m not interest in a debate over why we went to war, who we fought, what we did whilst there, etc (as I’m sure you aren’t), nor am I intereseted on taking any particular stance on those topics with you. That argument just struck me as particularly poorly presented is all, I hope you find it as constructive criticism.
PS: Why does your blog not accept email address with a ‘ ‘ symbol in them? You say you are somewhat geeky, but your blog has a blatant error like that? (No, blaming it on the wordpress developers isn’t a valid excuse). You do know it’s a valid character, right?
Oracle:
The short answer is that there is a qualitative difference between war and any of the other societal functions you mention.
War is the ugliest business mankind engages in. To advocate war is to advocate, well, it’s to advocate hell.
War is not making clean water. It is not walking a beat. It is not picking up garbage.
War is living every second on borrowed time. It is not knowing whether or not that seven year old is a decoy - a deadly tool of the insurgency. It’s watching your brethren die from a shot fired from a crowded street filled with women and children.
We’ve all seen the movies. I’m not going to be abe to adequately portray the horrors of war in this post. Instead, I’ll assume you know what they are and continue by saying that as much as you might want to, this argument cannot be seperated from th fact that this is a war of choice, founded on spurious evidence, against a country that was no threat and underpinned by bad choices made by political leaders. I truly believe that in large part the people that still support this war are really just Republican shills. They are dishonest and cannot bring themselves to admit that their leaders have the poorest judgment this nation has seen in its history - or at least since the LBJ/Nixon Vietnam years…
So yeah, you can advocate for low crime and the garbage being cleaned up. those aren’t “choices” - they are essential functions society needs. This war was, and is, in no way “essential”.
So if you want it, and you are capable, go fight it. Don’t go ask others to do it for you. That is just plain, old cowardice - there is no other way to spin it.
Thanks for the reply Mike, but I don’t think you properly responded to the intent of my comment.
Firstly, I don’t appreciate the way you sidelined the ‘police’ argument, as it suggests you have no respect for emergency services. And I do mean all of them, not just the police. There a bush fire near your home that needs putting out? Don’t be lazy and call the fire brigade, put it out yourself if that’s what you believe. It’s not essential that you put it out, it’ll burn itself out eventually, so it’s a choice like any other. Like that guy over there who’s got 2 broken arms and 2 broken legs. He’ll live, even without medical treatment; so treating him is a choice, not a forced action. In that case, why don’t you fix him up, if you believe he should be healed?
Secondly, you’ve stated that the only difference between the examples you mentioned, and going to war, was that war is not essential, but the others (more or less) are. What about the actions which are deemed non-essential? Should they only be acted by those who believe they should be done? Is this the way you would expect any kind of leader to run their country/state/town/company/group? But anyway, as demonstrated in the above paragraph, what is “essential” is a difference of opinion.
Thirdly, like I said, I’m not interested in debating over whether or not this particular war was justified, and yes, I understand that fighting in a war isn’t anywhere as fun as it may sound, and maybe those who are for this particular war are the scum of the universe; but those points are irrelevent.
The simple point I am making is, is it socially, logistically, financially or logically feasible for everyone who thinks we should go to war, to do so themselves? And if you do, then really, what is the point in having armed forces at all, if what you essentially want to do is implement a conscription system that’s based on people’s opinions? Isn’t that some kind of violation of Freedom of Speech?
Also think about what happens to the country these people are leaving behind. Want to eat at your local diner? Too bad, the chef and waitress were dragged off to the frontlines for having an opinion. You can’t put gas in your car, because all the local service station attendents are now riflemen. But that’s alright, because now that your company has no clients to serve, you don’t have to bother going to work; and forget your paycheck, all the payroll staff are communications officers.
Oh my God, nutcases are running the country! Oh wait, not anymore, since two thirds of the government are now operating tanks and humvees. That leaves only those who are against the war to inherit the power of your government; now that’s justice!
Honestly, could you not see a situation where an action like that could be easily abused, leaving only corruption to rule the US? And how do we determine who believes what about the war? Or do we only conscript the ones who have a public opinion?
Oh, and do please try to answer objectively this time with regards to that third point.
PS: Sorry about the last post, the symbol your blog isn’t accepting for email addresses is the plus sign, but for some reason it was stripped out of my post (and the first link somehow got messed up too, but I think you get the idea).
oracle, your comment only makes sense if mike were advocating making cowardice illegal. just because its legal to be a coward/hypocrite doesnt mean you shouldnt be criticized for it.
i oftentimes get the sense that the bush admin just doesnt care. how else do you explain their response to katrina? for them death and suffering is an afterthought, its abstract, its a statistic. the most powerful man in the world should not be reckless with human life. he wouldnt start wars so easily if he had fought. war is abstract for them, like a game of chess or something. who mourns the pawns lost? noone mourns the pawns, and bush has yet to go to the funeral of any soldiers who died in iraq. he just doesnt care, its not real for him. maybe hes watched too many steven segal movies, cause only segal is so nonchalant about killing people.
oracle, you havent said whether this criticism is legitimate or not, youve just said it shouldnt be legally mandated. i think thats a red herring, as i dont see anyone advocating that.
also oracle, going to war has consequences, and it should be avoided whenever possible. can you say the same about garbage pickup, water treatment etc?
it was possible to avoid the iraq war, so why isnt it legitimate to speculate why we didnt? i’d say it likely had something to do with the administration (and all the kilmeade-esque supporters, though to be fair, not all supporters of the iraq war are chickenhawks) either not understanding war or simply not caring.
oracle, your comment only makes sense if mike were advocating making cowardice illegal. just because its legal to be a coward/hypocrite doesnt mean you shouldnt be criticized for it.
Making a statement like “If you believe we should go to war, you should go fight that war yourself” isn’t critisism, it’s a suggestion for a change in the way we recruit our defense forces.
i oftentimes get the sense that the bush admin just doesnt care. how else do you explain their response to katrina? for them…
Oh, blah blah blah. Stop answering my legitimate questions with rants about how Bush is Satan and won’t stop until the world is demolished by nuclear explosions. I’ve heard it all before, and I’m really not interested - and apart from that, it’s not just a wild tangent to my arguments, but it’s a totally different circle. Besides, if you honestly feel that insecure about your own government (and fellow Americans/homosapiens), you’ve got a lot more to worry about than invading a couple of countries.
oracle, you havent said whether this criticism is legitimate or not, youve just said it shouldnt be legally mandated. i think thats a red herring, as i dont see anyone advocating that.
Damn straight I haven’t, becausde it’s painfully obvious by my real-world scenarios that Mike’s suggestion is simply not feasible - and thus, obviously, not a legitimate argument (unless he comes back with a compelling strategy that not only makes it possible, and feasible, but also of greater or equal benefit than the system we have now). If you’re going to start criticizing people by suggesting a scenario, at least consider the impact of actually implementing that scenario, rather than keeping it in the realm of hypothesis.
also oracle, going to war has consequences, and it should be avoided whenever possible. can you say the same about garbage pickup, water treatment etc?
Picking up garbage: I could put out my back. Water treatment: I could ingest harmful chemicals. Or drown. And of course, the emergency services all have their obvious hazards too, which I’m sure you simply forgot about, rather than just ignoring it because it’s a superior argument.
Maybe you should wait for Mike to come back and fight your moral battles for you. He may have also strayed far from the original argument, but at least he didn’t start spouting nonsense about how you’re the only one who cares about others. Because, you know, Bush and his cronies are just heartless bastards whose only goal is total world domination.
I think Brian Kilmeade might have about the same level of emotional maturity of oh say … an 11 year old drummer boy during the Revolutionary War. Likes to beat the war drum, but too damn immature to actually fight in the cause he supports. Or maybe anything heavier than a set of drum sticks (like a gun) is too taxing on his fragile widdle self!
I think the reason Mike keeps bringing this subject up, is because the wingnuts won’t answer the question. One of their oldest excuses has been taken away as the military has raised the age of people eligible to enlist. Now , more of these talking hawks are eligible to join up, and fight the fight they claim is so important for our survival. How many of those made newly eligible with the increased age limit, are willing to give up their cushy lives behind the microphone, and put their life on the line for something they claim to truly believe in?
After 9-11 many people rushed to join the military and defend our country. The country was very united as President Bush led us against the Taliban in Afghanistan. People have been very divided on our actions in Iraq. Are the people who have been cheerleading our actions in Iraq, willing to join in the fighting now that, because of the increased age limit, they are able to enlist?
It looks to me that the actions of many of these talking heads is comparable to those that supported the war in Vietnam, but did whatever they could to avoid service.
I guess the chickenhawk talking heads must have “other priorities”. Maybe they don’t really believe that this war is all that important.
why are the thick ones always so arrogant? ill try and make it simple, oracle.
“[me:]also oracle, going to war has consequences, and it should be avoided whenever possible. can you say the same about garbage pickup, water treatment etc?
[oracle:]Picking up garbage: I could put out my back. Water treatment: I could ingest harmful chemicals. Or drown. And of course, the emergency services all have their obvious hazards too..”
you honestly think water treatment ( etc) should be avoided whenever possible? or perhaps you dont think war should be avoided whenever possible? either opinion is idiotic, and if you truly believe that then you’re impervious to reason, so i wont try and change your mind.
-
“Damn straight I haven’t, becausde it’s painfully obvious by my real-world scenarios that Mike’s suggestion is simply not feasible - and thus, obviously, not a legitimate argument”
mike’s “suggestion” was that brian kilmeade admit that hes a coward (essentially), or that he visit walter reed. this is basic reading comprehension.
-
“Stop answering my legitimate questions with rants about how Bush is Satan and won’t stop until the world is demolished by nuclear explosions. I’ve heard it all before, and I’m really not interested - and apart from that, it’s not just a wild tangent to my arguments, but it’s a totally different circle. Besides, if you honestly feel that insecure about your own government (and fellow Americans/homosapiens), you’ve got a lot more to worry about than invading a couple of countries.”
its completely related. you honestly dont seem to understand the chickenhawk argument. i was trying to explain it (or the portion of the argument that i most agree with), though i admit i got a little carried away venting. also, by the way, i dont think bush is actively trying to destroy the world, and i agree that there is more to worry about than just invading a couple countries (for example, his radical domestic power grabs, radical in his opinion of what rights he has, not radical necessarily in what hes so far done). that doesnt mean i shouldnt also worry about his foreign policy though.
-
youve made it clear you dont want to argue about whether the chickenhawk argument is a legitimate criticism. so, is the entire point of all 3 of your long posts merely, “people shouldnt be forced to engage in every single activity that they support”? if so, ill let it drop, because i agree with you (you should learn to edit your posts down though, one sentence was all that was needed). i wouldnt force brian kilmeade to join the military.
-
“but at least he didn’t start spouting nonsense about how you’re the only one who cares about others. Because, you know, Bush and his cronies are just heartless bastards whose only goal is total world domination.”
i never said im the only person who cares about others, nor did i say the bush admin’s only goal is total world domination. however, i do think bush cares more about his own power than he does about the safety of ordinary people (this could be said about many people seeking powerful offices though). also its such a weasel tactic to dismiss my criticisms out of hand, while not actually refuting anything (you can say my opinions are nonsense, but whats the point if you dont say why?). any statement made by me that you take issue with i can provide support for. unfortunately there’s mountains of evidence.
why are the thick ones always so arrogant? ill try and make it simple, oracle.
Ahh, resorting to name calling I see. The true sign of one who’s lost an argument (or their mind, whichever works for you). You show signs of weakness already, and I’ve barely even started. I do pity you, really, I do.
you honestly think water treatment ( etc) should be avoided whenever possible? or perhaps you dont think war should be avoided whenever possible? either opinion is idiotic, and if you truly believe that then you’re impervious to reason, so i wont try and change your mind.
Actually, I was responding to other part of your sentence, about those activities not having consequences (technically you said war does have consequences, and the suggestion those other activies don’t was implied, but it’s the same outcome). But, either way, feel free to debate points I’m not actually making if you wish, and I’ll still win. Yes, I believe water treatment should be avoided wherever possible. Why, are you willing to waste your time treating water we don’t actually need? You want to pick rubbish up off the ground when there’s not actually any rubbish there? Righty-o then.
mike’s “suggestion” was that brian kilmeade admit that hes a coward (essentially), or that he visit walter reed. this is basic reading comprehension.
Really? Damn, there must be some kind of virus on my PC then, because I actually see this in the blog entry:
The question: Why won’t you fight in a war you claim to believe in? A war you’ve said is our nation’s “highest moral calling”?
I better get that fixed.
that doesnt mean i shouldnt also worry about his foreign policy though.
You’re free to worry about any topic you like. Just don’t bitch about it to me as a replacement for rebutting my clearly laid out arguments.
youve made it clear you dont want to argue about whether the chickenhawk argument is a legitimate criticism.
Well actually, I’m not an American, so to be honest I had no idea what the “chickenhawk” argument was. I’m willing to admit ignorance on my part though. I’ve since read up on it - the idea that those who think we should go to war, should themselves do so (thanks Wikipedia!). So, correct, I don’t want to argue whether or not it’s a legitimate criticism; because my first post has already proven it to not be, and that post has yet to actually be addressed with any sort of logical response so far. So until you’re willing to actually counter it; no, I don’t want to argue about it, as it would essentially be arguing with myself at this point.
In fact, I’d be more than happy to debate the counter-arguments presented in the Wikipedia entry, if you feel my original points were too difficult for you. I might even be a little impressed if you come up with some original arguments for that ideal yourself.
so, is the entire point of all 3 of your long posts merely, “people shouldnt be forced to engage in every single activity that they support”? if so, ill let it drop, because i agree with you (you should learn to edit your posts down though, one sentence was all that was needed). i wouldnt force brian kilmeade to join the military.
So if you wouldn’t force them to join the military, why are you even mentioning the chickenhawk argument? You’re effectively saying “you’re free to not join the military, but if you don’t, you’re not allowed to have a pro-war opinion”, as if it’s an actual choice. What you’re giving is an illusion of free will. That’s like holding a gun to someone’s head and saying “You’re entirely free to not give me your wallet, but if you don’t, I’m going to shoot you”.
Oh, and do excuse me for my long posts, I like to be thorough to eliminate the possibility of misinterpretation, and to give myself a chance to clearly show my side of the debate. It doesn’t seem to have worked though, since relatively little of my actual points have yet been addressed. Perhaps you were expecting short, stupid canned comments, and are a little overwhelmed by an actual intelligent conversation from someone who dares disagree with you on one minor point? Maybe you were expecting the argument to be entirely pro-war, rather than merely counter-chickenhawk, so you could hope to use irrelevant anti-war arguments to aid your cause?
Oracle:
I do believe you are being willfully obtuse.
Put simply, there is no activity that civilizations engage more extreme than war. In many ways, it marks the breakdown of civilization.
If you advocate that, you should be willing to partake of the consequences.
This is an argument based on the qualitative characteristics of certain activities. Policing has nothing on war. Neither does fire-fighting, EMT, mowing lawns or water treatment. In fact, each of those functions are markers of a healthy society.
Once again, war is so far outside the ideal society that if one is to advocate its waging, one should be willing to engage.
As for all your other arguments, they are either red-herrings or ancillary to the real question at hand which is: why won’t Kilmeade fight in a war he advocates? One he knows other people are dying in? Why does he, so physically capable, expect others to die for him without being willing to take the EXTREME risk he expects from others?
Orade is playing libertarian straw man with mike’s argument.
We need to make more babies to keep up with red China and I volunteer myself. I’m a bootyhawk
oracle,
sorry if i offended you, calling you thick (at least we know the skin part of you aint thick). really though, tone down the arrogance. its especially annoying when you dont know what you’re talking about.
theres several little things i think you mischaracterized, but ill ignore them to stay on point, and because that sort of thing quickly gets petty (or pettier).
“So, correct, I don’t want to argue whether or not it’s a legitimate criticism; because my first post has already proven it to not be, and that post has yet to actually be addressed with any sort of logical response so far. So until you’re willing to actually counter it; no, I don’t want to argue about it, as it would essentially be arguing with myself at this point.”
if the point of your first post was “people shouldnt be forced to engage in all activities that they support”, then yes i believe i have addressed it. i agree with you.
“In fact, I’d be more than happy to debate the counter-arguments presented in the Wikipedia entry, if you feel my original points were too difficult for you…So if you wouldn’t force them to join the military, why are you even mentioning the chickenhawk argument?”
because i believe its a legitimate criticism. chickenhawks are less deserving of respect, their views should be taken with a large grain of salt.
IMO, just because someone is a chickenhawk doesnt mean they have less right to debate issues, nor does it mean they should be shipped off to baghdad (even though my impulse towards emotional justice makes me want to see it). i do think it helps explain the mindset they are coming from though. that “rant about how bush is satan”, the one you were uninterested in, was really mostly about how bush is a chickenhawk, and why that is dangerous. if you want to counter my arguments i would refer you to that post, or my first one in this thread.
or, if you want to use wikipedia’s framing of the issue (the parts i changed to fit my views are bracketed), i believe hawks “who advocate war but avoided combat themselves are hypocritical, and this hypocrisy weakens [but doesnt invalidate] their current views about warfare.” and i believe “People who have been in combat have seen [the] true cost of war, and are therefore [more likely to avoid starting wars of choice] than people who have never been in combat.” i disagree on wikipedia’s third argument in favor.
it is possible that you’re being willfully obtuse as mike said, so this might be my last post.
Hmm, this is getting to be quite a long debate. Let me do everyone a favor by summarizing the points made so far:
[Mike]If you believe we should go to war, you should fight it yourself. If you don’t, you’re a coward (aka. the chickenhawk idealism)
(I’ll skip to the comments that actually have any intelligent content)
[Me]What you’re essentially suggesting is that, if you want to be in favor of a war, you should have to go fight it yourself. That’s not feasible.
-It’s also not a rational argument, because it doesn’t apply uniformly to other situations, eg. emergency services.
[Mike]War is hell.
[Me]I don’t care, that wasn’t the point. The point is, it’s not feasible to make these people go to war for having a pro-war opinion (giving reasons and scenarios).
[orihd]The chickenhawk ideal is just a criticism. Because of this, no one is suggesting anything.
-War is different to other situations because it has consequences.
-Oh, and Bush is the Devil!
[Me]The idea of criticism is to suggest a better way to do things - that’s called constructive criticism. If you don’t, all you’re doing is insulting people with no explanation.
-Every situation has consequences (as demonstrated).
[webegeek]OMG check out my MySpace account! WTF! i like poniez LOL!
[Ezsuds81]Chickenhawk is automatically deemed the final and ultimate argument, simply because those who are chickenhawks refuse to answer the question.
-I agree with the ideals it suggests. Though I can’t explain why.
[orihd]Because you disagree with me, you’re a tool and automatically wrong. You’re also an idiot, and are incapable of rational debate. Because of this, I’m not going to bother arguing your rational and legitimate arguments against the chickenhawk ideal.
-The chickenhawk ideal can not be applied to other situations because their consequences aren’t as serious.
-Bush is still the Devil.
-Mike is suggesting that Kilmeade is a coward, not that he should join the military.
-Why aren’t you arguing the chickenhawk ideal?
-I don’t understand how the chickenhawk ideal leads to forcing pro-war advocates to the join the military.
-I invite you to argue against my points. Unfortunately, I haven’t actually made any points to argue against, and I’m still ignoring/not understanding your original argument.
[Me]Name-calling is a sign of weakness.
-The very question that Mike asks is suggesting he should join the military.
-Applying chickenhawk to other situations doesn’t work not because the situations are flawed, but because chickenhawk is.
-Bitching about Bush isn’t a replacement for a well-defined argument.
-Again, I’ve already argued strong points against chickenhawk, yet no one has responded to them.
-Wikipedia makes some good arguments against chickenhawk, perhasp you’d like to rebut them instead of my arguments?
-Chickenhawk is suggestive of one joining the military (see *)
-The only explanation I can give for you not rebutting my comments and not providing your own is that you weren’t expecting an intelligent debate.
[Mike]You’re obtuse.
-War is hell.
-I’m ignoring your arguments because I don’t understand them.
[orihd]I can’t explain why your arguments are so good, so I’m just going to call you arrogant.
-I agree we shouldn’t force people to fight a war just because they advocate it. Despite the fact that this is the only logical conclusion one can gain from chickenhawk .(see *)
-My understanding of chickenhawk doesn’t mean that person has less grounds for argument, or should be forced into war, but that these people are obviously idiots. (which vicariously means you believe their arguments are worthless)
-Instead of arguing the counter-points on Wikipedia, I’ll change their wording to suit my views and pretend that’s a valid rebuttal. I still can’t explain the one about our forefathers being chickenhawks though.
-I believe you may be being obtuse (aka arrogant), which is justification enough for me not answering your valid arguments.
Ok, did I miss anything important? Oh yeah:
* At first I thought you were ignoring my initial major argument, perhaps because you had no rebuttal for it; but now I see that’s not case. What I can gather is, you don’t see the link between the chickenhawk ideal, and the suggestion we should force war advocates onto the frontlines. That can be easily explained; using math, no less (more specifically, Boolean Algebra). Don’t worry, it’s simple math. Consider the boolean equation:
x * y = z
Or, in plain English, ‘z’ is only true if both ‘x’ and ‘y’ are true. The programming equivalent is of course [z = x && y]. In order for z to not be true, you have to make either x or y (or both) not true (ie. false).
Now, we substitute the components of the chickenhawk ideal:
“Support War” * “Not in Military” = “Cowardice”
Now, let’s suppose Kilmeade wanted to NOT be branded a coward, idiot, devil, whatever insults you imply by calling them a chickenhawk. Using the same process, he can do that by either a) changing his stance on the war, b) changing his civillian status, or c) both.
I’m going to assume you’re not in the business of invalidating the concept of Freedom of Speech. That means option ‘a’ is out, as I think we can agree, chickenhawk isn’t an argument against FoS. The variable “Support War” remains true.
If he doesn’t change his civillian status, “Cowardice” will still be true. I’m also making the assumption that chickenhawk is actually an anti-war argument, and not merely a convenient insult, so by the very ideals of the chickenhawk argument, the goal is to change the state of “Cowardice” to false.
So what does that leave? The “Not in Military” variable. Leaving it ‘true’ means “Cowardice” is also true, He must make “Not in Military” equal ‘false’. In other words, he must join the military.
So as you can see, joining the military is the only logical choice for Kilemeade. Conclusively, this makes the only logical suggestion from the chickenhawk ideal being for the chickenhawk to join the military. Therefore, to enforce the ideal of chickenhawk is to force those who advocate a particular war to go fight it themselves. Which, as I demonstrated in my original post, is simply not feasible, proving chickenhawk is not a valid argument.
And don’t think I’m a one-point wonder, either. I do have another irrefutable argument to have some fun with, which I’ll present right after you exhibit an understanding of the above argument (at this point, I’m not even interested in a rebuttal to it anymore).
oracle, ive already stated all my views about chickenhawks, and ive tried to respond to all of your points (of which i only see one, that people shouldnt be forced to engage in every activity they support). i refuse to keep repeating myself. the fact is, you havent addressed any of my points, youve simply reduced them to “bush is satan” and dissmissed them out of hand. fine, you can do that.
ill respond to your last 8 paragraphs, by repeating from above, “your comment only makes sense if mike were advocating making cowardice illegal. just because its legal to be a coward/hypocrite doesnt mean you shouldnt be criticized for it.”
i dont see why its illegitimate to call kilmeade a coward (and you havent said why its not legitimate). hes only bold with other people’s lives. actually, hes worse than a coward, cause not all cowards are warmongers.
as to the “founding fathers” criticism of the chickenhawk argument (which is the only argument against that youve cited), that only makes sense if someone were suggesting that the military rule the country. chickenhawks should be treated with suspicion, and thats all (because of what it says about the person). they shouldnt be shot, shipped out to war, silenced, removed from whatever job they have (included the presidency), etc.
“[oracle pretending to accurately describe my position:]I believe you may be being obtuse (aka arrogant), which is justification enough for me not answering your valid arguments.”
this is some beautiful irony. really, oracle, isnt it embarrassing? i mean, all arrogant people are annoying in some ways, but when they dont know/understand the simplest things, and yet are still not humbled by their own ignorance, i just gotta laugh. (either you dont know what obtuse, aka, and/or arrogant means). i guess the internet brings that out in people.
“willfully obtuse” means you are not understanding an argument on purpose, probably so as to ignore it. it seems more and more accurate all the time.
to everyone else, sorry if feeding the troll has gotten out of hand.
oh, and if you’re problem with the chickenhawk criticism is that its not “constructive”, let me help. the “suggestion” i would make that follows from the chickenhawk criticism is:
“dont start/advocate wars of choice” or “avoid war whenever possible (even if you personally wont be fighting it)”
Bored now.
So the original fabulous argument you made that no one has yet defeated is supposed to be this?
There a bush fire near your home that needs putting out? Don’t be lazy and call the fire brigade, put it out yourself if that’s what you believe
Something or other about how the how chickenhawk argument is allegedly “invalidated’ (you keep using that word; I do not think it means what you think it means) because you think it’s strictly analogous to an argument about the EMS: something like, if something needs doing you should do it yourself! or, to be more charitable, something like, if you see a crisis situation you have a moral duty to intervene….
Your analogy is flawed, you are guilty of equivocation. I suspect Mike is right when he calls you willfully obtuse. You are surely clever enough to see this point:
mike’s point is that war is an activity unlike others. It is not comparable to putting out a fire in CA. There, the correct course of action surely is to call the FD; there also is a moral imperative to start hoisting buckets or rescuing others if so necessary: if one is physically able to do so, and if one is presented with imminent threat. These duties are not mutually exclusive.
What WOULD be wrong would be to call an underfunded fire dept and to sit by commenting on their actions, urging the fire dept to roust yet more volunteers out of bed, damning the populace at large for not joining up to fight the fire, and condemning those who do not support this–all while you yourself are comfortably and safely ensconced far above it, with no danger to you, and no danger that you’ll be called upon to lift a bucket nor will your children.
There’s a very simple word for people like Brian Kilmeade, and other chickenhawks:
Hypocrite.
Firstly, may I say welcome to the fray, DP Roberts. Congrats on being the first person to actually debate one of my more flawed points. Your next challenge is to try applying it to the more difficult police point. Straight from Wikipedia, it is: Extending the “chickenhawk” approach into other American political debates would mean that, for example, only police officers (and ex-police officers) could advocate that policemen fight crime. You’ve still yet to explain how it’s possible for one to have a pro-war opinion, yet still avoid the unfeasibility of having all those with that opinion join the military; and you’ve confused my use of the word “invalid” (meaning an argument which has no valid basis) with “invalidated” (which is the process of something becoming invalid); but it’s a start. Baby steps. I look forward to an intellegent debate with you.
Now for my old friend orihd. Ahh, back to the name calling I see. How mature.
I really don’t know why you’re repeating the same arguments. I’ve already rebutted them all. I even addressed them individually, and argued point for point against your take on the matter - you can identify those counters by the style I’ve used, which is to quote you, then directly rebut it, it really can’t get any more obvious than that.
And yet, you’ve just indicated that I’m totally ignoring your points. Seriously dude, what the fuck? Are you even reading my posts? Are they, perhaps, a little too beyond your comprehension or what? Maybe that laugh of yours is a nervous laugh? I mean, I’ve recognized your arguments, I’ve argued against them directly, I’ve reiterated those points time and time again, even rephrasing them for your pitifully weak mind. I even had the balls to ignore the places where you blantantly modified my (and Wikipedia’s) arguments, and instead continued along the tangent you started, and even then, you ignored the points I made in response. How do you even manage to breath?
I do have a little saying that explains it though. “You can’t make someone believe something they don’t want to believe, no matter how many facts you present to prove your point, and how well those facts are presented.” Your circular arguments and blissful ignorance of major debate points are attributes I’d expect to see from a Flat Earth Society member, not an anti-war activist. Please, do yourself a favor, and be quiet now. You’re an embarrassment to yourself, to your fellow anti-war devotees (which may or may not include myself; remember, I’m not taking a stance here), and most importantly, to homosapiens everywhere. You make me feel ashamed to be human.
Arrogant? Obtuse? Willfully obtuse? That’s your opinion, and I honestly don’t care. The facts, though, are obvious - you’ve acted no more civilized than myself, so to call me arrogant is to apply the same rationale to yourself; I’ve presented factual arguments, major holes in your stances, which have yet to be rebutted, whereas you’ve presented piss-weak attempts to change the realm of the arguments and make last-minute changes to your stance; and what’s more, you’ve resorted to name calling, something which I avoided (until just recently in the above paragraphs, regretfully I might add, but it did have to be said, as it seems to be the only conversation you understand).
“i dont see why its illegitimate to call kilmeade a coward (and you havent said why its not legitimate).”
Already answered in your second reply there. Because it’s not constructive. You seem to think chickenhawk is a legitimate argument. As proven above, it’s not really an argument at all, let alone a legitimate one (the same applies to simply calling him a coward, which is, of course, exactly the same thing).
So, now that you’ve made it clear you’re more interested in changing the definition of chickenhawk to adapt to arguments against it, as opposed to, oh I don’t know, engaging in an intelligent debate, which you are obviously incapable of; fine, I can go with the flow once again. It’s Tangent Time!
“dont start/advocate wars of choice” or “avoid war whenever possible (even if you personally wont be fighting it)”
Smooth. Now, if we can only find a way to determine which wars are ones of choice. Like I have already demonstrated countless times, choice is a matter of opinion. You can choose to let yourself be shot in the head, that’s fine. You can also choose to let your country be nuked, which is obviously preferrable to you.
And what about the World Wars, were you against them too? Are you suggesting that because the US wasn’t under immediate threat, that they should have stayed out of it, and let Nazi Germany reign over Europe? I’m guessing you were also against a little skirmish called the American Revolution too. I guess you’d prefer to still be a colony of England. But why limit ourselves to America? You’re effectively saying that you’re against all wars fought for a nation’s independence, because, after all, they are wars of what you would consider “choice”. Furthermore, your concept of “choice” still fails to explain the application of chickenhawk to emergency services. Your stance doesn’t seem so logical now, does it?
But that’s not why I called. Here’s my second argument against chickenhawk, as promised. I invite those with IQs of at least two digits to respond, without resorting to changing the definition of chickenhawk, or suddenly deciding that you’re only partially in favor of it.
What happens to the chickenhawk ideal when all Americans agree that a war is justified?
Consider this scenario; let’s pretend that Iraq were not only 100% confirmed to have WMDs, but were actually publically admitting that they intended to depoly them on US soil. An invasion is then justified, right?
So, almost every American now believes they should go to war. But, not everyone is going to do so. Does that mean that those who don’t are all chickenhawks - including yourselves?
Let’s analyse each situation, and its result in terms of the validity of chickenhawk.
Scenario:Everyone believes they should go to war, but, as pointed out in my original argument, it’s not feasible or logical for everybody to actually do so. Nevertheless, every one of those people are still deemed chickenhawks by people like yourself, including yourselves.
Result:Chickenhawk a) is not feasible or logical and b) now insults all civillian Americans. An idealism that is not feasible, and that indiscriminatly insults everyone is not a legitimate argument. Therefore chickenhawk is not a legitimate argument.
Scenario:Chickenhawk is no longer applied because everyone is in agreement of supporting the war.
Result:Chickenhawk becomes a stance that is only applied when it’s convenient for people like yourselves. It not only is influenced by your opinion on the war, but is based entirely on it. An argument that’s based solely on one’s opinion is not a legitimate argument, but a convenient insult used when you have no other rebuttal to a war advocate, therefore chickenhawk is not a legitimate argument.
Scenario:Everyone’s initial belief is that they should go to war to protect themselves. But, out of fear of being labelled chickenhawks, people then change their stance to anti-war.
Result:Chickenhawk now promotes accepting the mutually assured destruction of one’s country. This is irrational, making chickenhawk an illegitimate argument.
Scenario:A soldier who has either fought a previous war, or is in the current one, takes a pro-war stance.
Result:Chickenhawk does not cover this situation. It is an inadequate argument.
Scenario:A civillian who has never served in the military is against war.
Result:Chickenhawk logic would suggest the civillian has as little influence arguing against the war, as they do for it, which thus puts everyone on equal standings. Chicken is an irrelevant argument.
Scenario:A previous/current soldier has a political opinion.
Result:Generalized, chickenhawk automatically implies this type of person is inherently more qualified to make that political opinion. Taking it back to the explicit definition, chickenhawk assumes this person is more qualified to take political stances in regards to war (whether to enter a war or not). This effectively means chickenhawk advocates would rather put a soldier with a day of combat experience into power (at least when it comes to war decisions), than one who’s more qualified for the world of politics. Meaning, a Private’s military decision has more bearing than a General’s (remember, it wasn’t some rusty old politic that sent you to war, but a whole cabinet’s, based on the advice of military advisors, most of which probably would have had combat experience at some point). Chickenhawk places importance on minimal experience, instead of qualifications, making it illedgitimate.
Thus, we can conclude that since chickenhawk is adversely affected by, nay entirely based on, one’s personal stance on the necessity of a particular war, it cannot be deemed a legitimate argument against war. Chickenhawk is nothing more than an insult used to spread FUD about a war advocate, because the anti-war supporter cannot think of any better rebuttal to the war advocate’s opinions. Chickenhawk is the civillian’s equivalent of a political smear campaign.
Also note how I was able to twice prove the illegitimacy of the chickenhawk idealism without even taking a stance on whether I am for or against this week’s war of interest, or even without taking a political stance - something that you people seem incapable of doing. Which is another problem you Americans have; you seem to think the job of the people is to choose “Left Wing” or “Right Wing” and stick to it, rather than simply choosing the party that just happens to most accurately represent your opinions at the time like you’re supposed to. But please don’t bother to rebut that right now, you have enough on your plate already, and it’s a topic for another day.
Oracle, You haven’t presented an arguement, you have presented a thesis on lonely, self centered, boring trolls. Ignatious, from “A Confederacy of Dunces” is a character already created. Get a Job, Man.
Oracle -
I couldn’t give a shit less about your academic deconstruction of the word “chickenhawk”. It’s a new ploy lately for cowards to use in justifying their lack of conscience over sending boys off to fight and criticizing anyone that disagrees with the reasons behind it.
Who cares if nobody is able to split these hairs with you at the micro level you want. That doesn’t change the fact that Brian Kilmeade is a coward and a pussy.
I’m guessing you’re trying to excuse yourself from feelings of cowardice as well so you can still feel like a man. A lot of people on this site (from what I’ve gathered) have served. Try to give your semantic argument to a hardened soldier while defending foxnews pundits’ courageous talking points.
I’m out now but my brothers active duty. He tells me his fellow troops find most of the guys on foxnews silly or stupid; they see through their “brave” posturing -they just don’t get as worked up about it as most of us do.
You could probably make an argument for child molestation by breaking down the biological wiring of a predator’s brain. That doesn’t make it anything less than immoral.
So keep waving your pom-poms from the sidelines sweetie.
Oracle, It never ceases to amaze me how long winded a person can be in rationalizing their distaste for own their personal shortcomings. Sad, really.
Derifield, Thats called a “bitch slap”~ good on you.
I just can’t even begin to see how someone can try to defend this pathetic human trait. It’s not the war supporters that this site goes after, it’s the war mongers. The bombastic, tough as nails, so called war machines like Sean Hannity who would tell a midget who just slapped his mother “Look, I don’t want any trouble”.
They’re making up for their true lack of courage and testes by painting themselves in red, white, and blue and verbally bullying other good Americans who are practicing honest dissent and criticism of their leaders.
It really is just a notch above trying to defend NAMBLA.
In the f*cked up Foxnews world somehow I’m the coward, Mike’s the coward, John Murtha’s the coward because we don’t support this war, even though each has a military record. Cowards!? And Brian Kilmeade is a heroic stud…to Oracle apparently. How the shit does that work?
Sorry to take shots pal, but you’re trying to defend the indefensible.
You can support this war and not serve in the military. But if you’re going to be on a national stage running your mouth, spitting venom at detractors, and worst of all influencing superficial viewers who are too dumb or time constrained to get beyond the slanted talking points, then you deserve AT LEAST to be called a cowardly chickenhawk.
These assholes don’t support the troops, they’re an offense to the troops.
oracle,
“Thus, we can conclude that…chickenhawk… is entirely based on, one’s personal stance on the necessity of a particular war”
well, yes, i agree. isnt this obvious? the fact that you feel you need to prove this makes me think you still dont understand the argument.
ive already stated that i think the chickenhawk critique only applies to people who are eager to start wars. how do you determine if they are eager to start wars? well, starting wars (or advocating starting wars) unnecessarily is a good hint.
obviously its a matter of opinion whether a war was necessary or not.
bush said the war on iraq was “pre-emptive”. it wasnt in reaction to anything saddam did (he hadnt done anything since our last war with iraq). we were told that iraq was an imminent threat to our national security. we were told top iraqi officials had met with mohammed atta shortly before 9/11. we were told iraq had an active nuclear program. that is how the usa got convinced the iraq war was necessary. none of those things turned out to be true, so can you blame us for thinking the war was not necessary?
“I mean, I’ve recognized your arguments, I’ve argued against them directly, I’ve reiterated those points time and time again, even rephrasing them for your pitifully weak mind. I even had the balls to ignore the places where you blantantly modified my (and Wikipedia’s) arguments”
your rephrasings of my arguments didnt even come close. i assumed they were meant as rhetorical devices, but maybe you honestly didnt understand them. the only place i modified your argument was when i was trying to clarify if what you were saying was “people shouldnt be forced to engage in every activity that they support” (and i didnt do it dishonestly, i asked it as a question, so ignoring the question doesnt make you gracious). i modified wikipedia’s arguments to fit my own, because i would rather argue my own views. whoever wrote the wikipedia article can defend themself. anyway, the following statements are my views (perhaps you should read it over more than once, just in case):
1 the decision to go to war with iraq was not a last resort (see: the downing street memo, which said something like “the decision to war has already been made. the intelligence is being fixed around the policy.” and this was at a time bush publicly was saying he was trying to avoid war).
2 anyone who doesnt treat war as a last resort is a warmonger.
3 george bush has never been to war, and therefore has no visceral idea about the gravity of war.
4 it is reasonable to assume people who have never been to war would be more likely to start wars (for example, a person who has never burned themself would be more likely to put their hand on a glowing-red stove. children have to be told not to do this.)
5 it is reasonable to say bush doesnt have a proper respect for human life, as shown by his ignoring the victims of katrina, his support of torture (neither of which benefit him), etc
6 anyone who doesnt have a proper respect for human life is more likely to see the casualties of war as a mere statistic, and therefore is less likely to avoid war.
7 therefore i do not trust george bush in matters of war (and also many other areas, but thats a different subject).
you wont find that on wikipedia, and sorry if my views dont exactly conform to what you’re trying to argue against. i am being consistent though.
Let me make this simple, lets be adults, anyone that advocates a war and will not fight it is a coward. The only thing that stops them is cowardice and a willingness to sacrifice their personal saftey and comfort. It is childish to suggest otherwise.
Bill Crystal when asked by Steven Colbert, why he did not serve in Vietnam, Bill responded that he was too young. Steven Colbert replied that you were 19 Bill. No response from Bill. Once again anyone that advocates war and will not fight in it, is a coward.
So with the current events in the Middle East, North Korea, the question is, will you serve this country if needed? If gw bush calls for a draft, will anyone answer it? Will the American people stand for a draft without the bush twins being drafted? I should say the whole bush clan. I don’t think America will stand for it. Answer that question repugs, will you send your kids to war? Or will you let the country fall?
I will wait for a response from our chickenhawk friends, I doubt that there will be many. I just handed you your ass on a plate, which is what this coward brian had happen to him, put up or shut up cowards.
Orhid, or Orchid, or whatever your name is:
No one said that you had to participate in every activity you support. However, logic would suggest that if you believe your country should go to war, you should be man enough to join up. After all - wars are about responding to a threat. They’re about the survival of culture, nation, family and lifestyle. They are the option of last resort. Right?
Not this war.
This war was by choice, and it was the cowardly supporters of the war that had nothing at risk (certainly none of the things listed above), that landed our troops there to die (and kill - don’t think that killing doesn’t hurt the killer in a war).
It’s called backing up your big mouth with some action.
if you don’t get it, then you’re not only cowardly, you’re pathetic.
You’re the kind of person who flips someone the bird in traffic, and then prays that the next light isn’t red.
Pathetic.
I hope you and yours get drafted.
Coward.
Sorry, Orhid. In my haste to chastise Oracke, I inadvertantly typed your name.
You, sir or ma’am, are apparently a gentleperson, scholar, patriot and probably good looking, to boot.
Sincere apologies.
I havent read all comments, only as far as oracle’s response to Mike.
Oracle- when another, much more powerful country attacks and invades you- there is no socially, logistically, financially or logically feasible choice in the matter.
You’re in a fight for your survival.
That’s what we did to Iraq.
So, I agree with Mike. If you think it’s something you should sit in an air conditioned tv studio and cheerlead- then get your ass out there on the frontlines.
Otherwise, you’re a coward.
I’d be happy to see Kilmeade, Rush, Hannity etc. just admit that they are cowards.
Oh joy, more useless banter. Again, you’re all quick to make assumptions and state your side of the argument, whilst totally ignoring the arguments presented clearly before you; and again, you’re all ranting about how bad war is, which is absolutely irrelevent to the debate. Piece of advice to you all; ’tis better to be thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt.
[popin-in]Oracle, You haven’t presented an arguement, you have presented a thesis on lonely, self centered, boring trolls.
Who might those trolls be then? Please quote exact lines where I’ve actually mentioned people at all in my arguments (except for where I addressed Mike, orihd and DP Roberts, as I’m going to assume those aren’t the specific trolls you’re talking about; and where I mentioned Kilmead as a persona for the sake of argument).
[popin-in]Get a Job, Man.
Actually, I do, that would explain the patterns of 16-20 hours in which I don’t reply. Not that it’s any of your business anyway, let alone even remotely related to the discussion. If you only came here to avoid the actual topic and instead start a flamewar, you’re in the wrong place, you’re not helping your cause, and I’m sure Mike doesn’t appreciate the “help” given by people like you. Maybe I suggested Flat Earth Society membership to the wrong person?
[Jeremy Derifield]I couldn’t give a shit less about your academic deconstruction of the word “chickenhawk”.
Why, too difficult to understand? If you’re going to follow an idealogy based on it, you should give a shit what it means.
[Jermey Derifield]It’s a new ploy lately for cowards to use in justifying their lack of conscience over sending boys off to fight and criticizing anyone that disagrees with the reasons behind it.
Actually, I think you’re a little confused here. Chickenhawk is a ploy used by anti-war activists, not war supporters. Besides, what proof does that present that they don’t have a conscience?
[Jeremy Derifield]Who cares if nobody is able to split these hairs with you at the micro level you want. That doesn’t change the fact that Brian Kilmeade is a coward and a pussy.
See *
[popin-in]Oracle, It never ceases to amaze me how long winded a person can be in rationalizing their distaste for own their personal shortcomings. Sad, really.
Again, I do excuse the long posts, but they are a necessary evil. I guess it’s a lose-lose situation - if I make short posts, people fantasize their own interpretation of my arguments. Make long posts, people don’t bother reading them and have a bitch at how long they are. This place is unique, though - there’s some sort of combination of the three, misinterpretation, ignorance, and bitching. Be warned though, this post is also pretty long.
[Jeremy Derifield]I just can’t even begin to see how someone can try to defend this pathetic human trait. It’s not the war supporters that this site goes after, it’s the war mongers. The bombastic, tough as nails, so called war machines like Sean Hannity who would tell a midget who just slapped his mother “Look, I don’t want any trouble”.
They’re making up for their true lack of courage and testes by painting themselves in red, white, and blue and verbally bullying other good Americans who are practicing honest dissent and criticism of their leaders.
Well actually, I never defended anything or anyone. I merely stated that chickenhawk is not a valid anti-war argument, and provided proof of it. Maybe if you presented anti-war arguments, rather than just branding war advocates as “cowards”, they wouldn’t respond to you so harshly? It’s also quite ironic how you mention the false patriotism. The war advocates are branded false patriots by you guys, but you both fight the same stance: “We’re the only ones who care about our people, save them! We need to protect all Americans from the evil enemies!”. The only difference is, in the pro side the “evil enemies” are Osama, Saddam, Al-Queda and such, and “the people” are Iraqis and Kurds, and American civillians. The con side puts the soldiers as “the people”, and the US Government (collectively known as “George Bush”, apparently) as the enemies. Both claim to be the only real Patriotic Americans.
By the by, how does one tell the difference between a “warmonger” and a “war supporter”? Is there some sort of standard, dictionary definition? Where is the line drawn between the two? Doesn’t support for a war fundamentally imply the war should occur as soon as possible anyway (which can easily be confused with being ‘anxious’ for war)? Or does warmonger only apply to those who support the war, but don’t publically explain their reasons? I would honestly like to know, because it’s ambiguous statements like that that make intelligent debates impossible (you can’t debate a topic until that topic is already clearly, unambiguously defined - the debate shouldn’t be wasted just on trying to define the various components of the topic).
[Jeremy Derifield]In the f*cked up Foxnews world somehow I’m the coward, Mike’s the coward, John Murtha’s the coward because we don’t support this war, even though each has a military record. Cowards!? And Brian Kilmeade is a heroic stud…to Oracle apparently. How the shit does that work?
Again, I have not defended anything or anyone (apart from myself), nor have I attacked anyone (exception: last post, to orihd) or anything (obviously excepting the chickenhawk idealism). I emplore you to find specific quotes of mine that explicity say different.
[Jeremy Derifield]Sorry to take shots pal, but you’re trying to defend the indefensible.
Who or what am I defending? Please tell me, I’m dying to know, as it’s hard to prove otherwise if you’re just making it up. Show me proof. Last I remember, I was critiquing an inaccurate methodology used to, ironically, critique others.
[Jeremy Derifield]You can support this war and not serve in the military. But if you’re going to be on a national stage running your mouth, spitting venom at detractors, and worst of all influencing superficial viewers who are too dumb or time constrained to get beyond the slanted talking points, then you deserve AT LEAST to be called a cowardly chickenhawk.
And why is that? How do media-imposed, revenue-driven time constraints represent the person to their detriment? And what exactly does “cowardess” imply? See *
[orihd]“Thus, we can conclude that…chickenhawk… is entirely based on, one’s personal stance on the necessity of a particular war”
well, yes, i agree. isnt this obvious?
Well that’s what I thought! But then, Mike started using the concept as if it were a legitimate anti-war argument! Crazy, huh? Someone should tell him to stop! Oh, wait, I already did. Then you all told me I was wrong.
[orihd]ive already stated that i think the chickenhawk critique only applies to people who are eager to start wars. how do you determine if they are eager to start wars? well, starting wars (or advocating starting wars) unnecessarily is a good hint.
obviously its a matter of opinion whether a war was necessary or not.
And thus, because of the conflicting opinions on necessity, it is impossible to determine one’s eagerness to start wars. Just because one person believes whatever parameters constitute a necessary war, and you don’t agree, doesn’t mean they’re eager. Again, the chickenhawk argument (or derivitives of it) fails, because it fails to unambiguously identify at least one of the critical components of its definition (eg. how to define one’s eagerness). And apart from that, chickenhawk fails to actually specify that it relates only to “unecessary wars” anyway, so if you sincerely believe it should do so, it would be a really good idea to edit the Wikipedia entry to reflect that, so people don’t get confused over its definition in the future. I can see you have a habit of partially make a point, but then fail to follow it through completely. Just my 2 cents, constructive criticism.
anyway, the following statements are my views (perhaps you should read it over more than once, just in case):
1 the decision to go to war with iraq was not a last resort (see: the downing street memo, which said something like “the decision to war has already been made. the intelligence is being fixed around the policy.” and this was at a time bush publicly was saying he was trying to avoid war).
2 anyone who doesnt treat war as a last resort is a warmonger.
3 george bush has never been to war, and therefore has no visceral idea about the gravity of war.
4 it is reasonable to assume people who have never been to war would be more likely to start wars (for example, a person who has never burned themself would be more likely to put their hand on a glowing-red stove. children have to be told not to do this.)
5 it is reasonable to say bush doesnt have a proper respect for human life, as shown by his ignoring the victims of katrina, his support of torture (neither of which benefit him), etc
6 anyone who doesnt have a proper respect for human life is more likely to see the casualties of war as a mere statistic, and therefore is less likely to avoid war.
7 therefore i do not trust george bush in matters of war (and also many other areas, but thats a different subject).
1) As mentioned, of course, the idea of last resort is influenced by one’s opinion, so is not a reliable argument. It also suggests the American Revolution had the same (il)legitimacy as the Iraq (or Vietnam) war. I’m going to, just this once, assume you mention the Iraq war as an example for argument’s sake (in the the same way I mentioned Kilmead), and do in fact have this stance for all wars, not just the ones you are led to believe are illegitimate. With regards to the Downing Street Memo, you should be aware it is an unofficial leaked document. There are many “leaked documents” which can “prove” the US is/was at one point hiding aliens/alien technology at Area 51, too. It’s borderline, if not completely, conspiracy theory territory.
2) Again, this refers to those involved in the American Civil war (assuming, of course, you believe it was a justified, but non-essential war; but as far as I know, independence did the country good, and they weren’t under a direct threat of invasion), or indeed any Civil War. Take the time to apply your arguments to other scenarios, to see if they still stand up to your own scrutiny - then make them public (that’s really the only debating method I use, which obviously makes them strong enough arguments that it forces you to keep calling me arrogant, which, by the way, I take as a complement).
3) Once more, you can apply this rationale to other scenarios to see it’s illogical effects. As noted by Wikipedia, it applies to Abraham Lincoln, Woodrow Wilson, and Franklin D. Roosevelt, showing you have no respect for these people. Naturally, it also applies to the arguments of the anti-war activist. Have YOU fought in the Iraq war? What about everyone else here?
4) I agree with this one, but it does not really prove anything. True, a leader’s support for war is possibly influenced by the fact that they may never have fought in one. Conversely, it also means someone who has experienced war will be more passive in regards to sending others to fight, as their reluctance to engage in battle has more to do with personal preference rather than necessity. I’d “prefer” to not go work for my money, and if given a real choice, I wouldn’t go to work (wouldn’t we all?); but that doesn’t mean I don’t believe it’s “necessary” under the current circumstances (ie. me not being rich). Essentially, both experiences put the two leaders at opposite ends of the spectrum in regards to their (lack of) wartime capabilities.
5) I’m not going to start debating these other scenarios, eg. how much help Bush could or could not have given to Katrina victims due to Federal/State separation of powers, or the apparent incompetence of FEMA; or, whether or not torture is a legitimate interrogation method; or what Bush would actually gain from publically showing disregard for human life, and his possible motives for doing so; but I will say these are poor examples of proving your point. Consider the scenario where you can choose between saving a bus full of school children from falling off a cliff, or you can give CPR to the guy who’s having a heart attack right in front of you. Naturally, one would choose the former since it’s the most logical and rational choice. Using the same logic as your argument, I can say that that person has no respect for human life because they let the guy with a heart attack die.
6) It could also be said that soldiers killing enemies have no respect for human life, yet I’m sure they wouldn’t see casualties as a statistic (for their side, at least). The second part of your statement can be referred to my rebuttal point 4.
7) Really, that’s your opinion based on the conclusion of your arguments, and I have no major problem with it (there is of course the little issue of confusing one man with hundreds of government members; and the matter of who you would trust to lead your country if Bush is incapable, since no one person has the exact same opinion on absolutely everything as you do; but whatever). However, it fails to address how “bush is an idiot” relates to “his stance on war is wrong”. Maybe he is an idiot. And maybe Kilmeade is a coward. I could compile a just as convincing argument that stipulates that because John Smith is a wanker, it automatically means his anti-war arguments should be ignored, and that this is enough proof that war should be encouraged. What the Original Recipe Chickenhawk critque presents, and what you present with your particular derivative of chickenhawk (which I’ll call Zinger Chickenhawk, to prevent confusion), are not compelling enough reasons to assume their particular stace on war is wrong. After all, even a stopped clock is right twice a day.
Example: If Bush had decided not to go to war, would you still disagree with him purely for the sake of disagreeing with him? I’ll assume not. This proves that your opinion is based solely on the fact that his government’s actions differ from your personal beliefs, rather than your resulting conclusion of their leadership capabilities as you suggest. More importantly, it still fails to address the primary original argument of how “chickenhawk” (either Original Recipe or Zinger) could possibly be an anti-war argument.
[smafdy]No one said that you had to participate in every activity you support. However, logic would suggest that if you believe your country should go to war, you should be man enough to join up. After all - wars are about responding to a threat. They’re about the survival of culture, nation, family and lifestyle. They are the option of last resort. Right?
Presumably, yes, I agree that wars are an option of last resort, and anyone who suggests otherwise doesn’t have their priorities straight. Clearly though, we’ve demonstrated “last resort” (aka “necessity”) is a matter of opinion. We’ve also demonstrated that even with the anti-war activists’ definition of a “necessary war”, “necessary” is not synomous with “justified” (eg. civil wars), the latter of which is really the idea you’re fighting for. Furthermore, you don’t propose any alternative action for when a war is justified and necessary. Does responding to a direct threat, for instance, mean that the US President has to go fight the war? You seem to be stuck in medieval times, where the King himself would lead the charge on horseback. As I’ve outlined using several concepts, or at least mentioned, in almost all of my posts, this is not a feasible expectation in this day and age. A country cannot continue to run with all its leaders off to battle. Your own neighborhood ceases to function if you take out just a few of the key personnel. So no, logic does not suggest what you say it does; logic, among other concepts, actually suggest the exact opposite. Would YOU sign up if you believed in the war? Could the US military logistically handle 297 million new recruits (nearly 130 times its current number of personnel)? Who stays back at home to, you know, keep the country running? If they signed up, but didn’t actually experience combat, is their opinion on war still nullified? Do higher-ranked personnel have a greater bearing for the weighting of their opinions?
You also neglect to mention that they’re about the survival of all cultures, not just your own. Remember the scenario I proposed, where Iraq was confirmed to have WMDs and publically announced their intention to attack the US? That dealt with a direct threat. What if we change it slightly, so the WMDs are now aimed at, say, Canada or Mexico? Are you saying the US has no right to invade since they are not under direct threat? How do your ideals about surviving cultures deal when clashed with a face off between two opposing cultures? For other examples, pick any two Arab countries (eg. Israel and Lebanon), because chances are their cultures oppose each other too.
[Jitter]I havent read all comments, only as far as oracle’s response to Mike.
I suggest you do, you’re missing out on a whole lot. Your arguments have already been made and rebutted several times now.
[jitter]I’d be happy to see Kilmeade, Rush, Hannity etc. just admit that they are cowards.
So you’re saying you don’t care if they advocate war, as long as they admit to being cowards? That doesn’t even make sense. How in the hell does that even constitute an anti-war argument? How does it constitute an argument at all? I thought the idea of being opposed to war was to state your opinion and, if possible, present a rational argument to why you believe your opinion is the correct one. The only possible good that could come from that is, it makes your opponents look like morons. Which makes you look like a moron, because it proves you don’t really care about the positives or negatives of the topic at all, only that those who disagree with you should look stupid, which also makes you look like a selfish tool who’s trying to seek attention. With a statement like that, I doubt even your bretheren on this site would be willing to agree with you there.
* Chickenhawk (political) - definition:
Well I don’t know. You keep changing it on me. It’s hard to engage in a civilized debate when you keep changing the parameters. Please, choose one.
“The “Chickenhawk” idealism suggest/implies…
1) that you can’t support a war if you’re not in it.”
2) that if you’re in favor of war but not in it, you’re a coward, and thus your rationale supporting war are somewhat crippled.”
3) that one should have to fight a war in order to be able to support it.”
4) nothing at all. It is merely an insult with no attached argument.”
Picked one? Or several? Good for you. Match it/them with the respective conclusions below:
1) Chickenhawk breaches the concept of “Freedom of Speech”.
2) Chickenhawk is against the philosophy of “All men are created equal”, the very representation of Democracy.
3) Chickenhawk suggests a scenario which is impossible, illogical and unfeasable to enact.
4) Chickenhawk has no rational argument for or against war, or one’s support/condemnation of war. It is nothing more than FUD. Any use of it suggests the users has a lack of real arguments with any substance, and thus should be ignored.
I’ll tell you what I’m thinking, I’m thinking most of you will choose the second definition of chickenhawk (but will obviously find some way to modify or ignore the Democracy point). Which is interesting, because there’s actually a special case for that.
Chickenhawk can only possibly be a valid pro-war argument if it’s based on all of the following assumptions:
2)a) You simply calling someone a “coward” automatically makes it so, without any question.
b) A “coward” has critically less or zero basis for their arguments.
c) All war supporters are “cowards”, even the ones who are currently serving in the military.
d) None of the anti-war activists are “cowards” for any reason at all, as that would make anti-war arguments have the same weakened foundation as the For side, putting them at a stalemate.
Feel free to replace “coward” with “idiot”, “dickhead”, or whatever insulting word you feel best describes a chickenhawk - the result remains the same. And do try to remember, I’m not saying you can’t call anti-war supporters cowards. It’s your right to be free to do so. My only objection is that you base it on solid facts, rather than the illegitimate explanation provided by chickenhawk, which only serves to make yourself look stupid; and that you not use it as the anti-war argument it has been clearly proven to not be.
Sorry, I know I keep going on, but I have something else to add with regards to the necessity of war.
We all know there is no such thing as a 0% chance of attack on the US, or a 100% chance of attack. So, at what point do you switch from saying war isn’t necessary to saying that it is? If there was a 90% certainty of an attack on the US being planned, would you consider that necessary? 50%? 10%? What if there were, say a 95% certainty that a particular country was going to attack, but only a 15% certainty that the attack would be against the US?
You all seem so eager to take the high moral ground and suggest that you would only attack as a last resort, but unfortunately the term “last resort” isn’t black and white. Does “last resort” mean you have enough US citizens left alive to repopulate the country? Do you wait until half your citizens are killed before it’s considered a “last resort”? Would you tolerate one or two deaths?
And what if, for argument’s sake, you would tolerate more deaths, or a higher percentage of attack certainty, than one of your fellow anti-war activists? Does that make them the chickenhawk because you’re willing to tolerate more than they are?
As you can see, it’s the little things you consider when you actually run through a scenario that determine the validity of the argument. Quite honestly, chickenhawk doesn’t seem to me like it’s an argument able to stand up to any kind of scrutiny - and you should thank yourselves I only apply it in confinement to chickenhawk, because it could just as easily be applied to almost any argument, whether they be pro- or anti- war.
oracle, just about everything is a matter of opinion, in politics at least. i think its a very strongly defended opinion though, and it is telling that you didnt attack my reasoning of why the iraq war was unnecessary. there never would have been a war if the administration hadnt made such outlandish claims about how threatening saddam hussein was. we now know at least a half dozen other countries were/are bigger threats.
regarding your treatment of my final (#7) point, i realize i conflate bush with the bush administration. however, i dont think theres much difference, and the people around bush are just as bad, if not worse. the moderating force was colin powell, and they got rid of him a while ago. im not saying bush’s pro-war arguments should be ignored, just that he should be treated with a great deal of suspicion, because hes a chickenhawk, but also because he has repeatedly lied. in my view, the chickenhawk argument doesnt prove anything, it merely suggests things (however other people on this site may think it proves something, im not sure). the things it suggests are horrible though.
“With regards to the Downing Street Memo, you should be aware it is an unofficial leaked document. There are many “leaked documents” which can “prove” the US is/was at one point hiding aliens/alien technology at Area 51, too. It’s borderline, if not completely, conspiracy theory territory.”
you should do a bit more research, read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Downing_Street_Memo#Veracity_of_the_memo (also, you might as well read the rest, seeing as how incredibly important it is)
nobody has denied it, and tony blair has apperantly confirmed its authenticity, though noone has confirmed the actual allegations. however, youd expect these people to be more honest in private than in public about such matters. oracle, its dangerous not to have at least some suspicion of those in power. power corrupts, and power wants more power.
“Clearly though, we’ve demonstrated “last resort” (aka “necessity”) is a matter of opinion.”
i’m not sure who “we” is, but in the case of the iraq war, it clearly wasnt the last resort. the downing street memo proves this. george bush said it was the last resort, but he was lying, because while he said this, the decision to go to war had already been made. theres not too much room for opinion in there. i doubt bush honestly thought it was a last resort.
as for your second comment, about percentages, its funny you should bring that up. theres a new book out called “the one percent doctrine”. i havent read it, but i have heard about it, and apperantly the doctrine, invented by dick cheney, is that if there is a one percent chance of an attack on america happening, then you must treat it as a certainty in your response. in essence, evidence no longer matters, only suggestion does. you dont think that sounds grotesquely militant, and illogically overreaching? how many countries do you think have a one percent chance of attacking us? id say this by itself is proof that cheney is eager to go to war (and cheney is the most powerful US vice president ever).
and finally, just to reiterate, my main point is that you should treat these people with a great deal of suspicion. its very dangerous not to. they used up all their benefit of the doubt a long long time ago. actually i think there are much stronger reasons to treat them with suspicion, but those deal with domestic matters, so i wont bring them up here.
I’ve read every syllable you wrote Oracle. Forgive me if I ruin the discourse here but you’re a condescending, whitebread little shit.
F*ck you and your CHICKENHAWK, CHICKENSHIT buddies. Go see what a nearly melted human body looks like, check out a person blinded by mortar shrapnel, how bout somebody with 1 arm left? American or Iraqi.
You’ve got that self admitted arrogance and think you’re brave typing words on the internet defending your rightie buddies.
I’ll make all the assumptions in the world about what you’re like and who you’re defending because you’re not plugging in the blanks. All signs point to a certain personality (one of the traits being extraodinary physical cowardess, but a big mouth, much like Sean Hannity). I know you dude. I’m not extremely articulate or academic so I’m just going to resort to calling you on your manhood, which is what guys away from the internet would do.
I have a brother that’s active duty. I’m a veteran - I’m 31 years old so I’ve collected a lot of troop buddies over the years. If you were around you’d be thanking all of us profusely for our service and we’d say “yea, sure, no problem buddy” and a more blunt soldier, probably drinking, would start making fun of you, suggesting that you’re a male cheerleader. There’d be no references to Wikipedia, the credibility of The Downing St. memo, or the American Revolution. You’d be embarrassed and that’s that guys right to do that. He earned that right. And that’s why I love that people are tearing Brian Kilmeade apart. The man has a vagina.
Orade, I missed your response to my comments, you had such a long post. Once again, lets kiss it, keep it simple stupid. Please answer Orade, otherwise you prove my point, your ass was handed to you on a plate. I hope you don’t write a long answer, it is a simple question.
freder421, this one’s for you buddy, because you’re obviously too lazy and/or stupid to read anything intelligent. I didn’t respond to your comments because they didn’t present any new arguments, but if you want the satisfaction of being personally embarassed, so be it.
[freder421]Let me make this simple, lets be adults, anyone that advocates a war and will not fight it is a coward. The only thing that stops them is cowardice and a willingness to sacrifice their personal saftey and comfort. It is childish to suggest otherwise.
Calling people cowards is being adult? Whatever. I’m guessing you yourself have seen active combat and by your own argument be qualified to give an opinion of war, otherwise you, sir, are the coward and hypocrite. Anyway, you think everyone who thinks different to you is a coward, good for you Mr Maturirty. So, what are your arguments against the war?
[freder421]Please answer Orade, otherwise you prove my point, your ass was handed to you on a plate
Just because someone ignores you, doesn’t necessarily make you right. There are plenty of other good reasons to ignore you. But not as many as there are to ignore Jeremy:
[Jeremy Derifield]F*ck you and your CHICKENHAWK, CHICKENSHIT buddies.
Oh wow! Nice debating skills. Tool. Let’s see what assumptions you’re making here, based on, by your own admission, absolutely zero evidence;
-That I haven’t served in the military
-That I support the war
-That I’m defending what you call “chickenhawks”
-That I’m a right-winger (coming from a country that doesn’t even have the concept of “left wing” and “right wing”, I fail to even see how that one’s even possible)
I will give Fifty of your American dollars to anyone who can prove any of those statements (”proof” means using evidence, as in, the kind you could submit to a court of law). Oh, that’s right, you don’t need evidence, do you Germy?
[Jeremy Derifield]I’m not extremely articulate or academic so I’m just going to resort to calling you on your manhood, which is what guys away from the internet would do.
Read: “I’m stupid, and since I don’t have any real arguments to make, I’m just going to call you names until you admit that I’m right - even though I haven’t clearly defined what my stance is, because I’m too busy bending over and taking it in the ass from my hero Mike Stark. Or pretty much anyone else who also hates Bush, I’m not fussy”
Really, there are better ways of admitting defeat than flaming out of desperation.
It’s a good thing I don’t use the same ad hominem logic as you two idiots, because otherwise you would have done a great deal to prove the ‘evil, cowardly’ war supporters correct. By the way, anyone who’s still stuck on “Support War = Coward AND Coward = Wrong”, try arguing with ad hominem. Now if you’ll excuse me, I have some intelligent conversation to attend to. But thanks for the unanticipated roasting, I enjoyed that.
[orihd]and it is telling that you didnt attack my reasoning of why the iraq war was unnecessary.
Telling of what? That I’m not interested in debating the justification of the Iraq war, something that I specifically said in my first post that I wasn’t interested in doing? To suggest I should debate that point, you’re assuming I’m pro-war. I really don’t know how you achieved that conclusion - I’ve made no mention of my personal opinion on the war, I have only said that chickenhawk is not a legitimate anti-war argument. I’ve also demonstrated that most of the points you guys use as anti-war arguments, can quite easily be turned around into neutral or even pro-war arguments. In fact, if anything, debating that point suggests I take the same stance on war as you people, because the only benefit that could come from my discussion is to improve your arguments (unless of course I were to bother going to a pro-war blog and doing the same thing, but I really don’t want to shoot myself in the foot, especially after meeting the “nice” folks around here).
So no, I’m not going to take a stance on the war here, because I know you’ll use it as an excuse to avoid my real arguments and just attack my personal beliefs, because naturally you’ll falsely take it as an admission to supporting the war. Hell, most of these people are already doing that, despite the fact there is no such evidence to support that. Now, I could of course rationally debate the point with you, under the possibility that I am AGAINST the war, but merely want to prove that there are better anti-war arguments out there than the ones presented here; but you and I both know the “I’m against the war, but…” possibility will be taken with a grain of salt by the bullheaded whining retards who seem to hang around this place (not to suggest that everyone here fits that description).
[orihd]i’m not sure who “we” is, but in the case of the iraq war, it clearly wasnt the last resort.
“We” meaning me. I was expecting the reader to follow along with the logic process I posted, so they can prove to themselves it only results in the conclusion I mentioned (as opposed to the common idea around here, that you’re free to make any outlandish comment you want without having to justify how you reached that conclusion).
As you mentioned yourself, it’s the one percent thing. Assuming it is true, any certainty of attack greater than 1% would thus mean attacking was indeed necessary.
Put it this way; YOU run the country. Would you sit idly by while your intelligence officers tell you there’s a one in a hundred certainty of being attacked by possible nuclear or biochemical weapons? I would speculate that the attack certainty of a regular country probably lingers around the tenths to hundredths of a percent at any given time.
Here’s the problem though; you don’t know what the threat assessment was concering in particular the Iraq situation, and you don’t know what Bush’s personal stance is with regards to how high he’ll let the attack certainty go before responding. It’s clear, though, that you think it wasn’t enough. So, as I already asked, what number would you wait for? Remember, in order for a criticism to be anything more than FUD, it has to suggest an alternative.
[orihd]nobody has denied it, and tony blair has apperantly confirmed its authenticity, though noone has confirmed the actual allegations.
Firstly, I already did research it. Perhaps it is you who should do the researching:
Q: Thank you, sir. On Iraq, the so-called “Downing Street Memo” from July 2002, says, “Intelligence and facts remain fixed around the policy of removing Saddam through military actions.” Is this an accurate reflection of what happened? Could both of you respond?
BLAIR: Well, I can respond to that very easily. No, the facts were not being fixed in any shape or form at all. And let me remind you that that memorandum was written before we then went to the United Nations.
Far as I can tell, what Blair is doing is outright denying the statement, then proving it by saying that the original document was written before the time that the “fact fixing” had allegedly been reported, suggesting that the only way that statement could have been legitimately in the document was if there was time travel involved. Think of it like calling 911 to report a murder hours before the murder has actually been committed. Bush does similar:
BUSH: And somebody said, Well, you know, we had made up our mind to go to use military force to deal with Saddam. There’s nothing farther from the truth.
Regarding the use of war as a last resort:
And so it’s — look, both of us didn’t want to use our military. Nobody wants to commit military into combat. That’s the last option.
…
It’s the last option that the president must have, and it’s the last option I know my friend had as well.
Clearly, your gaze is fixed around using disputed “evidence” to vaguely support an opinion you already had, rather than basing your opinion on the evidence.
Regarding other countries; no, lack of someone actively denying something does not inherrently prove that the ’something’ is necessarily true. For a cross-reference, government-produced documented proof of aliens are not always actively denied either, that doesn’t make them true though. It’s as outrageous as assuming that, since you’ve done nothing to actively deny the accusation that you’re a space alien, that proves that you are one. There are a plethora of other reasons why one wouldn’t deny an accusation (eg. they don’t have the time to defend every single bizzare accusation presented, they prefer not to justify them with a response, they’ve never been presented the accusation to begin with, etc).
I’m somewhat guilty of that too; I have said that those who ignore my arguments obviously don’t have a rebuttal for them, thus I am correct. The difference is, I don’t actually believe that; I do it to provoke a response, instead of allowing you/them to go off on a wild tangent. I also know it’s not true because I deliberately plant flaws in an argument to allow the chance for one to rebut them, so I can prove whether or not anyone is actually paying close attention to those arguments. So far, DP Roberts is the only one who’s actually picked up one of the flaws, albeit in a minor argument (an analogy, to be exact). You, orihd, haven’t picked up on any, but at least you presented a somewhat rational debate (eventually; I did have to coax it out of you). I do say ’somewhat’, because what you did was change the parameters of the debate (changing chickenhawk to mean “necessary” wars), then went off on a tangent (trying to define what “necessary” means I encourage, but the way you did it strayed too far from the original argument). Everyone else has either repeated Mike’s stance ad infinitum, taken stances already rebutted, or merely flamed, doing everyone a disservice.
[orihd]how many countries do you think have a one percent chance of attacking us?
I imagine not many. Remember, it’s not a “chance”, it’s a “certainty”. I apologize if I did use chance, but it’s meant to be certainty (chance being synonomous with opportunity). Canada, for instance, has a pretty good chance of attacking you; they have their own ground forces, and their base of operations is just down the road. But attack certainty considers not just opportunity, but variables such as, allegiance, geographic plausibility, range of attack, motive, gain vs loss ratio, relative size of force, military capabilities (strength of force), military capabilities (weapons posessed), military capabilities (use of technology), history of violence, etc. Religion probably comes into it too, but I’m sure they’d want to keep a lid on that one. Considering these other variables would be low, the attack certainty for Canada would be more less zero (asymptotically).
The same can be said for the super powers; though their forces are much larger, they’re further away, they little to no motive for attack, and they have little to gain from attacking. They’ve also demonstrated no public wish to attack the US. Now consider a place like Iraq. I’m not going to do the work for you, because you’ll undoubtedly argue that the variables I consider to increase the attack certainty are nothing more than Bush lies and conspiracies. I will say though, I did my own little analysis, and got an attack certainty of roughly 10%. Though, that only regards the US. The justification for war can be greatly expanded by adding the idea that you’re going in to defend other people (in this case, the Iraqis).
Now, let’s assume you got an attack certainty that was pretty low. Let’s also assume that it’s lower than you would accept as reasonable grounds to invade a country. You’ve thus proved that, if you were specifically were running the country, you wouldn’t have invaded Iraq. Does that mean it’s wrong to invade Iraq? No. It does show that hypothetically, the war was unjust, but it does not provide any reason or evidence that the Iraq war was a bad one.
Consider this scenario:
-CIA reports no reasonable grounds to attack Iraq
-UN weapons inspectors allowed full access to the country, no WMDs found
-Bush invades anyway, against the wishes of the nation
-ICBMs filled with unknown, but deadly biotoxin are found, armed, targeted towards the US, and mere days away from launch
-ICBMs are disabled, peace restored, troops are withdrawn
Of course, this isn’t what happened, and it’s a fairly unlikely scenario. Call it “dumb luck”, if you will. But, it does prove that just because a war can be deemed unjustified, doesn’t automatically imply that the war had no positive effect.
Here’s a wacky idea; assuming that you are all correct, that war supporters are cowards and thus wrong, and that the Iraq war can be proven to be engaged in on false pretenses, isn’t proof that the war had a negative result. I assume that’s the point that you’re all trying to make here; that wars (”of choice”, if you agree with orihd and I that chickenhawk is wrong) only results negatively. Have any of you actually argued why? For example, a majority of science is the result of pure accident. Taking your war logic:
-Iraq war was started on false pretenses
-Iraq war was unjustified
-(ignore outcome of the war)
-Therefore, the Iraq war should not have been fought
Now apply it to penicillin:
-Discovery of Penicillin was a mistake
-Penicillin’s discovery was unjustified
-(ignore effect of penicillin on society)
-Therefore, Penicillin should not be used
Ergo, proof that the initiation of an action is not reasonable grounds to ignore the result of that action.
[orihd]and finally, just to reiterate, my main point is that you should treat these people with a great deal of suspicion. its very dangerous not to.
Exactly, I agree. You should treat war supporters with suspicion. You should also treat anti-war supporters with suspicion. And don’t forget the fence sitters too. Because if you only discriminate a certain group to give scrutiny to, but wholeheartedly agree with others (who just happen to share your opinion; by pure chance, I’m sure) then, to reiterate my point, you’re being disciminatory and anti-democratic.
Two questions for Mike.
Is there an ignore feature available with this blog software?
Do you know where I can find a new scroll wheel for my mouse?
j/k
Oracle: “Oh wow! Nice debating skills. Tool. Let’s see what assumptions you’re making here, based on, by your own admission, absolutely zero evidence;
-That I haven’t served in the military
-That I support the war
-That I’m defending what you call “chickenhawks”
-That I’m a right-winger (coming from a country that doesn’t even have the concept of “left wing” and “right wing”, I fail to even see how that one’s even possible)
I will give Fifty of your American dollars to anyone who can prove any of those statements (”proof” means using evidence, as in, the kind you could submit to a court of law). Oh, that’s right, you don’t need evidence, do you Germy?”
Well, then this is the last thing I’ll say.
What’s your real name (you have mine by the way)?
Have you served in the military?
What country are you in?
Do you feel this Iraq war was necessary and do you support it?
By coming on this forum and insulting everyone on it about it’s primary theme do you then feel that the pundits on Foxnews have been fair and balanced in their news delivery of the Iraq war? Most of us here find that they’re disingenuous and intentionally misleading in order to support an administration (and keep their viewers votes in that direction) that led the U.S. into what we feel was a war that did not need to be fought. We feel pundits like that do extreme damage with their biased reporting and leading superficial voters into what we feel are deranged right wing policies.
Do you find that the pundits on Foxnews are objective in their reporting?
Matter fact, let’s keep it focused - do you feel that Brian Kilmeade is objective in his reporting of this Iraq war?
And you are doing the same thing you’re accusing others of doing (which sure sounds like the neocon pundits I’m used to hearing) by breaking up the context of people’s arguments and selectively responding.
You’ve continually criticized us for making assumptions about you. You’re leaving out important details - you know where most of us stand on these issues, you know some of us have military records, you know we’re not defending these “news” anchors - we’re critical of them. But you can continue to throw feces because YOU are just playing devil’s advocate.
Well, what’s your opinions on all this tough guy?
Who are you? A page at Foxnews angry about the attacks on Kilmeade?
Lay it out, or shut up and leave.
Oracle,
You begin your intrusion in this comments threat by using a completely false premise upon which you base your initial argument, then spend the entire thread (and countless THOUSANDS of words; dude, why, oh, why do you have such a neurotic need to prove how clever you are, on SOMEONE ELSE’S blog, with complete strangers, most of whom could give a flying fuck what you think, even if–and it’s a HUGE if–you are right?) bloviating endlessly–and arrogantly–with the most comical sophistry imaginable.
You begin with a false premise and then defend this premise with every knee-jerk logical tool available to a sophist, and this you do with a haughty and contemptuous tone towards your opponents that makes your sophistry even more entertainingly specious and illogical.
Your false premise is your complete misunderstanding of the term “chickenhawk.” This misunderstanding you possess is either deliberate or has come about simply because you are an idiot and suffer from severe intellectual myopia. I don’t care if you’ve read Wikipedia’s (a half-assed “quickie” reference for Internet wankers and intellectual lightweights) definition or derived your idea of what “chickenhawk” means from divine intervention; the fact remains you are wrong in how you perceive and attack the meaning of the word and its context in the argument.
I shall submit for you the most perfect model of a chickenhawk in the most perfect context possible so that you, idiot that you are, can understand its meaning and stop your sophistic babbling here.
Our perfect chickenhawk model is Rush Limbaugh.
Mr. Limbaugh isn’t a chickenhawk because he didn’t serve in the armed forces. Lots of substantive, productive, and meaningful American citizens have never served and I would never cast aspersions on them simply because of their lack of national service. The miliatry ain’t for everyone.
Rush Limbaugh isn’t a chickenhawk simply because he’s been a major and very vocal advocate of the current “war of choice” in Iraq. A “war of choice,” means, simply, a war where no imminent threat causes one party to attack another. Iraq was not a clear and present danger to the United States, nor had it provoked the US into war. In terms of the true meaning of “national defense,” the invasion of Iraq did not meet the clear guidelines and precedents for our country to wage war.
Rush Limbaugh is not a chickenhawk because he supports this war of choice and he himself never served in uniform, now or in the past. Nor is he a chickenhawk because of how adamant and resolute his support has been. Free speech is a wonderful thing, and we all should respect the idea that citizens should speak loudly and clearly on all subjects with respect to our great Republic.
What makes Rush a chickenhawk has been his treatment of the opposition to this war of choice. How he cast aspersions on the patriotism of anyone who uttered ANY kind of opposition, criticism, or doubts about invading Iraq in the year prior to the invasion. The way he sneered at, spat upon, and derided anyone who opposed George W. Bush and the Bush administration, as if it is our civic duty to treat the President as an infallible potentate like the Catholic Pope or a medieval prince. The way he called anti-war advocates such things as cowards, traitors, and America haters. How he jokingly (or seriously) advocated eliminationist treatment (“Hang ‘em all”; “They should be taken out and shot!”) of anyone who opposed Bush and this war of choice in Iraq. By promoting the idea that TRUE patriotism is merely faith by justification and doesn’t require personal sacrifice in times of war by citizens. The fact he never served his country in times of need yet can sneer at, cajole, and deride anti-war (and anti-Bush) advocates and cast aspersions on their patriotism without a hint of hypocrisy in his tone…THAT is the definition of a chickenhawk. All talk and no action. Jingoistic bluster and bravado expressed loudly and arrogantly without any chance of his ass being placed in danger. And, despite never serving, having the GALL to treat others who will not serve because they oppose the war as traitors who should tried and hung.
As if this fat fucking pile of shit would ever know what it means to sacrifice for others, especially in times of war. You know, Oracle, we are just two generations removed from a time when citizens of MOST nations had no choice but to serve in uniform in times of war. If you were male, of age, and minimally healthy, you served. Quite often you died or were maimed or psychologically damaged for life. You had no choice in this; you were called and you served because you HAD to. It was a terrible thing and we are all glad we do not have this compulsory service requirement in most countries. Thank the stars you don’t live in a time when you are pressed into service against your will to fight in a war you might not have want to fight.
I volunteered for military service, not because I was a patriot or because I wanted to “defend” America. I did it for the generous incentives the Army offered and for the chance to see the world. This doesn’t make me a better citizen or more capable of arguing publicly on whether this nation should wage war or not. It doesn’t make me better than the couch potato, fist-waving, pro-war assholes who put a yellow ribbon on their bumper and cry every time that stupid fucking Lee Greenwood song comes on the radio; even the ones who are of age to serve, WANT the war, scream invectives at those opposed to it, but will not get off their lazy fat asses to serve this war they want so badly. I do not even feel more qualified or better than these turds. But that doesn’t mean they are not chickenhawk turds. They ARE. Their peers who are serving (and probably aren’t nearly as pro-war as the couch potatoes) deserve better.
When I use the word “chickenhawk” as a pejorative that I fling at another person, it is in the context of how I used it above in reference to Rush Limbaugh. And I believe I am correct in its usage, whether you–idiot that you are–agree or not, and your stupid arguments here can’t change that no matter how much sophistry and clever bullshitting you try to employ in your debate logic. You first mistake is thinking we give a shit what you think. The second is thinking your 10,000 words in this comment thread bear any weight when, in fact, your base argument is specious and sophistic, so everything that follows is just meaningless babbling in defense of a false premise.
So “chickenhawk” is both appropriate and necessary in this argument over the war of choice in Iraq, and in how Mike has been using it in his attacks against this right-wing dingbat, Brian Kilmeade.
Case closed.
So Oracle, how does that new asshole you just got feel?
Orade, thank you for your reply, first thing Iraq was not involved in 911. So therefore I cannot support it. I enlisted in the US Army on 16 Jun 75, until 16 Jun 78, right out of high school. My MOS was 21g, Pershing Electronic Mat. Spec. A two stage nuclear rocket, google Pershing if you don’t know about it.
Was it adult for purple bandages to be worn at the repug convention, to mock a wounded veteran? Once again, kiss it, keep it simple stupid. My question remains,will America stand for a draft without the bush twins and the rest of the bush clan not being drafted?
That is what you cannot answer, let me kiss it, I have served in the US Army,but I would not serve under gw bush. Have you ever served? If you support bush then I think you need to serve, if not you are a coward, just as Brian is. Last point, your repug trick of using countless words does not work, it shows your ignorance.
[Jeremy]Well, then this is the last thing I’ll say.
What’s your real name (you have mine by the way)?
Have you served in the military?
What country are you in?
Do you feel this Iraq war was necessary and do you support it?
I can see you’re all after answers. I presume this is so you can attack my opinions, rather than actually debate my arguments, which is why I have yet to reveal them. I will though, but only after the debate is over, so it doesn’t corrupt your arguments.
The one thing I won’t do, however, is state my real name. Not because I want to hide behind a pseudonym, as you would presume, but because I have a good sense of internet privacy and security (I have to, being in the field I’m in).
[Jeremy]You’ve continually criticized us for making assumptions about you. You’re leaving out important details - you know where most of us stand on these issues, you know some of us have military records, you know we’re not defending these “news” anchors - we’re critical of them. But you can continue to throw feces because YOU are just playing devil’s advocate.
Well, what’s your opinions on all this tough guy?
Who are you? A page at Foxnews angry about the attacks on Kilmeade?
To be quite honest, I don’t care where you guys stand on the issue. I couldn’t care less if you’re soldiers, politicians or civillians, pro-war or anti-war, because it’s all irrelevant. I made my intentions clear of just what it was I was arguing in the first post. It was only you people who turned it into a pro-war/anti-war thing, so you only have yourselves to blame.
[Jeremy]By coming on this forum and insulting everyone on it about it’s primary theme
If the primary theme of this forum is to “insult those who have an opinion different to ours, as discriminantly and anti-democratically as possible”, then yes, I’ve insulted everyone here in that regards. So you’re willing to dish out unconstructive criticism, but can’t even deal with one person’s constructive criticism (shown by the way you all get fired up when I point out a flaw in your arguments)? Is that not the very definition of Hypocritical?
[Jeremy]do you then feel that the pundits on Foxnews have been fair and balanced in their news delivery of the Iraq war?
Of course not. The media is biased. So what’s new? Of course, there are as many blatantly anti-war media groups as there are pro-war ones, so I really don’t know why your gripe isn’t with all media corporations, and not just the ones who are biased against your opinions.
[freder421]Was it adult for purple bandages to be worn at the repug convention, to mock a wounded veteran?
The whole reason for the banadages was indeed to mock the claims that Kerry was in fact wounded, so therefore you cannot argue that they were “mocking a wounded veteran”, because it is the very legitimacy of that claim that in question.
Did that justify the action though? Absolutely not. Does it justify using the same dipshit tactics agains ‘Republicans’? Absolutely not.
[freder421]Have you ever served?
You ask this question like it’s relevant to the debate. I won’t answer that just yet, but I may eventually so keep it in mind.
[freder421]Last point, your repug trick of using countless words does not work, it shows your ignorance.
Please explain. How does providing a well-thought out (and thus, long) argument constitute ignorance? Maybe if you didn’t all repeat the same argument, and all expect a direct response because “otherwise (I) prove (your) point, (my) ass was handed to (me) on a plate.”, my posts wouldn’t be so goddamn long. You think I like typing this much just to prove a simple point (which you still don’t understand)? Of course not, I just dont’t happen to feel like losing a debate to a bunch of whiny retards.
[Alex]countless THOUSANDS of words; dude, why, oh, why do you have such a neurotic need to prove how clever you are, on SOMEONE ELSE’S blog, with complete strangers, most of whom could give a flying fuck what you think, even if–and it’s a HUGE if–you are right?
[Alex]You begin your intrusion in this comments threat by using a completely false premise upon which you base your initial argument
…
Your false premise is your complete misunderstanding of the term “chickenhawk.” This misunderstanding you possess is either deliberate or has come about simply because you are an idiot and suffer from severe intellectual myopia.
Actually, if you even read my posts, you’ll notice this in my original argument:
[Oracle]“if you believe we should go to war, why aren’t you fighting it yourself?”. I don’t see that as a valid argument.
You’ll also notice that it wasn’t me who introduced the term; it was orihd. Since the only point I had made at that point was what I quoted above, it is clear that either
a) orihd is the one that doesn’t know what chickenhawk means
b) orihd knew I didn’t know what chickenhawk meant, and took advantage of this to intentionally draw me into an argument which I had never intended to participate in
On top of that, you wait until now to change the meaning of the word. Clearly, no one else here defines it the same way as you, otherwise they would have provided that definition of it to me by now. Since they didn’t, it can only mean that even amongst yourselves, you have no clear definition of the word chickenhawk.
[Alex]I don’t care if you’ve read Wikipedia’s (a half-assed “quickie” reference for Internet wankers and intellectual lightweights) definition or derived your idea of what “chickenhawk” means from divine intervention; the fact remains you are wrong in how you perceive and attack the meaning of the word and its context in the argument.
No shit I used Wikipedia. How the hell else was I meant to know what it means? Like I said, I’m not American, so the term never comes up in conversation where I live. And according to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, the definition of chickenhawk is:
Function: noun
1 : a hawk that preys or is believed to prey on chickens.
2 slang : a man who pursues boys or young men for sexual purposes
So believing a “real” dictionary would have thrown me even further from the definition.
So, do you have a better reference than Wikipedia? And when you say “Internet wankers”, does that mean everyone on the net is a wanker (such as yourself)?
FYI: Wikipedia is a construct of internet users from all walks of life. If you disagree with the definition provided there, then feel free to edit it, that’s the meaning of a Wiki. Do note though, it conflicts with everyone else’s definition of the word, so you may have to use their Talk page to justify your reasons for the change. Also note that the mere fact the word (in its political usage) was created by anti-war supporters like yourself, and thus it would make sense to assume it was added into the wiki by one with that stance; so there is at the very least one person who is against the war, but uses the term in the way described there.
[Alex]What makes Rush a chickenhawk has been his treatment of the opposition to this war of choice. How he cast aspersions on the patriotism of anyone who uttered ANY kind of opposition, criticism, or doubts about invading Iraq in the year prior to the invasion.
Yes, Rush Limbaugh is probably an asshole. Same with Kilmeade. But, I don’t know either of them personally, and as already pointed out by Jeremy, the media is unreliable, so I can’t say for sure. Does that justify calling them cowards, idiots or anything else you can think of at the time? Would you still do so if they were against the war? It seems that, by doing this, all you’re achieving is showing the war advocates that “Yes, we can play the game of ‘fuckwit’ just as well as you can!”. This makes you just as bad as them, which is what I’ve been trying to point out all along.
You’re free to call all war supporters derogatory names if you want, and free to think negatively of their arguments; but unless you provide a viable alternative, it’s not constructive criticism - and unconstructive criticism essentially equates to irrational name-calling, and doesn’t do either side any good.
[Alex]It doesn’t make me better than the couch potato, fist-waving, pro-war assholes who put a yellow ribbon on their bumper and cry every time that stupid fucking Lee Greenwood song comes on the radio; even the ones who are of age to serve, WANT the war, scream invectives at those opposed to it, but will not get off their lazy fat asses to serve this war they want so badly. I do not even feel more qualified or better than these turds. But that doesn’t mean they are not chickenhawk turds. They ARE.
You are doing no better than those people.
[Alex]So “chickenhawk” is both appropriate and necessary in this argument over the war of choice in Iraq
All you’ve done is say that those who support an argument, and degrade the other side, are chickenhawks (naturally, you don’t apply this to those against the war that fit this exact description - which includes yourselves). In effect, you’ve just been saying “That guy says we should have freedom of speech! In retalliation, we should take away his right to speak!”
[Alex]and in how Mike has been using it in his attacks against this right-wing dingbat, Brian Kilmeade.
Mike has not been using it the same way you have. In fact, he’s been quite clear on his intentions:
[Mike]As many of you know, I’ve teamed up with JC CHristian and Operation Yellow Elephant to create a grassroots movement that has the goal of encouraging Brian Kilmeade of Fox News, a rabid war supporter, to enlist in the Army.
[Mike]then give them about half of your talking point before launching into an appeal for Kilmeade to fight the war himself.
[Mike]I promised y’all that I’d start calling them liars, racists and chickenhawks… Now you can include “sex tourists” in the mix also…
[Mike]I’d rather have him standing up and doing it than Bill Frist or any of the chickenhawks that never spent a day in theater.
The way he assumes a chickenhawk has never spent a day in theater (of war) suggests the term already implies a requirement of not having been in a war.
Consequently, he says this just before the above:
[Mike]Who better to police the Marines than somebody that spent 37 years in the Marines?
Suggesting that only a combat veteran should be in charge of the troops. Which either means he wants a soldier to be President (ignoring political qualifications), or he believes the president should lose military ranking power of the troops.
Quite clearly his goal is to get war supporters to join the military, and NOT to silence anyone who degrades those on the other side of the debate. Though, to be fair, he’s never explicitly said “chickenhawk means such and such…”, at least not that I can find.
[Alex]I volunteered for military service, not because I was a patriot or because I wanted to “defend” America. I did it for the generous incentives the Army offered and for the chance to see the world. This doesn’t make me a better citizen or more capable of arguing publicly on whether this nation should wage war or not.
Clearly you do believe it makes you better than anyone who hasn’t, otherwise you wouldn’t have mentioned it. Either that, or you just have an obsession with spurting off random and irrelevant facts about yourself.
[Alex]When I use the word “chickenhawk” as a pejorative that I fling at another person, it is in the context of how I used it above in reference to Rush Limbaugh. And I believe I am correct in its usage, whether you–idiot that you are–agree or not, and your stupid arguments here can’t change that no matter how much sophistry and clever bullshitting you try to employ in your debate logic.
Of course, I agree, your usage of the word “chickenhawk” is correct. It can’t be anything less, since what you effectively did was change the meaning of the word to suit your preference. I can call you a “champion debater”, and I’ll be correct. So long as, by “champion debater”, I mean “an idiot who, rather than arguing rational points, manipulates those points into something they’re clearly not, and then argues against the new redefinition of the original point”. Perhaps you’re a Scott Adams reader?
By the way, perhaps you were distracted by Alex’s attempt to conform the argument to his opinion, but you all missed the obviously flaw in this statement:
Put it this way; YOU run the country. Would you sit idly by while your intelligence officers tell you there’s a one in a hundred certainty of being attacked by possible nuclear or biochemical weapons?
Does nobody spot the problem with that argument?
Forgot to respond to one:
[Alex]countless THOUSANDS of words; dude, why, oh, why do you have such a neurotic need to prove how clever you are, on SOMEONE ELSE’S blog, with complete strangers, most of whom could give a flying fuck what you think, even if–and it’s a HUGE if–you are right?
Firstly, the length of my posts is explained above. Secondly, I do this on someone else’s blog because a) blogs are usually for morons who keep getting ignored in real life so I don’t have my own, and b) I don’t have to hang out at blogs that support the same opinion I do, to make myself feel better, as it appears you must do.
Thirdly, if these “strangers” don’t care what I think, they wouldn’t resort to derogatory comments every time I make a comment they can’t argue against.
oracle, in case your still around, i have two quick points.
1 whether someone is eager to go to war is an opinion, but it is based on (in part) whether a war was necessary, and whether going to war was the last resort. therefore you cant seperate the two. thats why its telling that you dont argue against my argument that the war wasnt necessary and wasnt a last resort.
2 “BLAIR: Well, I can respond to that very easily. No, the facts were not being fixed in any shape or form at all. And let me remind you that that memorandum was written before we then went to the United Nations.
[oracle:]Far as I can tell, what Blair is doing is outright denying the statement, then proving it by saying that the original document was written before the time that the “fact fixing” had allegedly been reported, suggesting that the only way that statement could have been legitimately in the document was if there was time travel involved. Think of it like calling 911 to report a murder hours before the murder has actually been committed. Bush does similar:”
yes, like i said, theyve denied the allegations in the memo (as would be expected), but blair has confirmed the memo’s authenticity. it wasnt forged is the point. you apperantly need to read the memo again because it says:
“It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force.
The Attorney-General said that the desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action. There were three possible legal bases: self-defence, humanitarian intervention, or UNSC authorisation. The first and second could not be the base in this case. Relying on UNSCR 1205 of three years ago would be difficult. The situation might of course change.”
that means they intend to fix the intellignece, because the justification isnt good enough yet, not that they already have fixed it. no time machine is necessary. if they had already fixed it, it would say “the case is now strong” or something. and the allegations arent “bizarre”, nor are they fringe even. see the parts of the wikipedia page that involve the US congress. they are a fairly mainstream body i believe. and quoting bush saying “i ony use war as a last resort” or whatever is incredibly weak. i can prove bill clinton never cheated on his wife using that tactic, i can prove richard nixon wasnt a crook.
as for their denying the allegations, the senate is supposed to investigate whether or not the administration misused intelligence in the runup to the iraq war. that investigation (phase two of the Senate Report of Pre-war Intelligence on Iraq) was supposed to start over a year ago, but has been stonewalled by the republicans (especially pat roberts) ever since. personally, id rather not take their word for it, as politicians have been known to lie. id also like an inquiry into the downing street memo.
and yes it is discriminatory to give more scrutiny to war supporters/starters than it is to others, but so what? thats like saying its discriminatory to be more careful with knives than marshmallows. cindy sheehan is not a threat, george bush is, its as simple as that.
i lost the patience to read any lower than that.
Orade I am not going to keep arguing with you. You can’t accept facts. I am a vet of the US Army, let me refer you to army regulation 672-5-1, awards program it is the same for branches of service. Kerry’s medals were valid, fact dude. gw bush was grounded for not taking a flight phyiscal, fact guy. Now lets argue those facts. You still have not answered my question about the draft. And you did not mention the fact that Iraq was not involved in 911. How can you debated, without facts? You just ramble dude. You are a idiot and a coward.
[freder421]I am a vet of the US Army, let me refer you to army regulation 672-5-1, awards program it is the same for branches of service. Kerry’s medals were valid, fact dude.
I think you’re confusing me with one of the ones wearing the bandages. Take your argument to them, not me. They will probably ask you to justify why you think a couple of minor wounds (eg. cuts and grazes) deserves a medal. If that’s true, I probably would too, but that’s not for me to debate.
[freder421]You still have not answered my question about the draft.
[freder421]If gw bush calls for a draft, will anyone answer it?
Of course not. Any idiot (yes, even Bush) can tell conscription isn’t needed. Maybe you’re living in the past, but urban warfare doesn’t require large groups of inexerienced, unwilling grunts. It needs only few key and well trained personnel, fully qualified and experienced strike groups (all of whom have volunteered for service), and adequate technology (thus the term Technological Warfare).
Conscription couldn’t be called for anyway; the Selective Service System was abandoned in 1973 (it remains a contingency plan should the numbers be needed to defend your country), and the bill for the Universal National Service Act 2003 failed (it was introduced by an anti-war nut to prove a point). Interestingly, the only 2 who voted for it (as opposed to the 402 against) had both served in the military (one in the USAF, who’s outspoken against the Iraq war, the other in the Marines, who was first for the war, but last year submitted a resolution to recall troops).
[freder421]Will the American people stand for a draft without the bush twins being drafted?
Conscription cannot happen. And naturally, under any conscription system, there are several types of people who are exempt from conscription (including those who are required to stay back and RUN THE COUNTRY).
[freder421]And you did not mention the fact that Iraq was not involved in 911.
Correct, I didn’t. I also never said they were involved, so I don’t know why you’re bringing it up.
[freder421]You are a idiot and a coward.
If you say so, chickenhawk. *hands over ass on plate*
[orihd]1 whether someone is eager to go to war is an opinion, but it is based on (in part) whether a war was necessary, and whether going to war was the last resort. therefore you cant seperate the two.
So tell me; under what circumstances would you call an invasion “necessary”? How many options would you tolerate failure for until you decide combat is a “last resort”? What I’m doing is separating those concepts from the outcome of the war, which are both different to “justified”. War is simply a means to an end, not an end in itself. And as I’ve already shown, a war can have a positive outcome (and be “justified”) without ever being even remotely “necessary” (as in the case of civil wars and revolutions, or in the presented possibility of dumb luck).
[orihd]thats why its telling that you dont argue against my argument that the war wasnt necessary and wasnt a last resort.
Why is it that every time you post we get another step closer to a pro-war/anti-war debate? Are you trying to lure me into something that this debate is not? Even if I agreed with you - that doesn’t mean the war had overall negative consequences, which you’ve yet to actually debate. Besides, I have argued that point; by explaining to you how it isn’t the simple black and white answer you think it is.
[orihd]like i said, theyve denied the allegations in the memo (as would be expected), but blair has confirmed the memo’s authenticity. it wasnt forged is the point.
How can they deny the allegations in the memo, but confirm its authenticity? They’re mutually exclusive, sort of - the only possible way they could both be true is if the memo is legitimate, but merely incorrect. Whether the memo is wrong, or is entirely fabricated, makes no difference, because they both show the memo cannot be seen as a reliable source. Unforunately, it’s not falsifiable, meaning it can’t be proved either real or fake. For example, I could just say “God started this war, it’s His fault.” I can’t prove it’s true, but then you can’t prove it’s false either.
[orihd]that means they intend to fix the intellignece, because the justification isnt good enough yet, not that they already have fixed it. no time machine is necessary.
So then, why does the memo use both past and future tense when talking about the fixing of intelligence (quotes using both have been used by yourself)? Does this obvious inconsistency not make you question the authenticity?
[orihd]and quoting bush saying “i ony use war as a last resort” or whatever is incredibly weak. i can prove bill clinton never cheated on his wife using that tactic, i can prove richard nixon wasnt a crook.
No it doesn’t prove anything, obviously he could be lying. More likely though, he believes in his own mind that it was a last resort decision. Of course, we can’t make assumptions on his decisions, because we don’t have access to the intelligence he used to base his decisions on. It’s entirely possible that, based on the information he was given, he felt an invasion was necessary. 73% of your country agreed. Bush has since taken responsibility for wrong intelligence. Yet I see no arguments calling for a restructuring or auditing of the intelligence agencies involved, only Bush-bashing, and name-calling of those who support the war.
Also, your time frames do not match up. The Downing Street Memo you keep referring to was of a meeting on July 23 2002, meaning “they” were already fixing (or had already planned to fix, depending on the tense you believe) the intelligence that day, at the latest (but most likely for some time beforehand). The coalition did not invade until March 19, 2003. Seven and a half months, to me, does not sound like the time an “eager” man would wait to invade a country.
And then there’s the other countries in the coalition to consider.
[orihd]and yes it is discriminatory to give more scrutiny to war supporters/starters than it is to others, but so what? thats like saying its discriminatory to be more careful with knives than marshmallows.
Funny you should mention that. Besides, you’re not discriminating against the tool (or object), you’re disciminating against the person who says we should have the right to use those objects for their intended purpose, ignoring the fact that we have different tools for different puposes. I’d like to see you chop carrots with a marshmallow, and despite what you may believe, placing a knife or two in your hot chocolate isn’t perhaps the smartest idea.
[me]Put it this way; YOU run the country. Would you sit idly by while your intelligence officers tell you there’s a one in a hundred certainty of being attacked by possible nuclear or biochemical weapons?
Does nobody spot the problem with that argument?
It seems not. Let me help you.
“Of course not. There were plenty of options available that would have made an invasion unnecessary - better CIA investigations, more Secret Service involvement, more detailed UN Weapons Inspections, etc. In fact, since I’m not one to uncronstructively criticize, I would have taken the following specific action in order to avoid an invasion:
… (detailed plan for resolving the conflict)
Since this is a literal discussion, I even suggest the following people as Presidents of the US, who I know for sure would have taken that action (or close to):
… (list of feasibile candiates)”
To which I respond: “That’s great, well done. But you know it’s funny, I don’t remember any of you volunteering to work for the CIA, NSA, the Secret Service, Homeland Security, MI6, GCHQ, CSIS, CSE, AFP, ASIS, or ASIO - which puts you all in the exact same position as the ‘chickenhawks’”
Any problems with that?
“To which I respond: “That’s great, well done. But you know it’s funny, I don’t remember any of you volunteering to work for the CIA, NSA, the Secret Service, Homeland Security, MI6, GCHQ, CSIS, CSE, AFP, ASIS, or ASIO - which puts you all in the exact same position as the ‘chickenhawks’”
Any problems with that?”
I’m breaking my own rules engaging your dumbass but I must say - it must be nice taking these little shots from the safety and security of anonymity and fiber optics. You win this debate, you lose this debate, blah, blah, blah.
Fact remains, I think 90% of the vets you’re insulting right now you chickenhawk, neocon, Bush ball licking punk, would knock your teeth out. Period.
OK Jeremy, I give up, you win, your vastly superior intellectual arguments (aka your irrelevant, irrational name-calling) are too much for my simple little idiotic mind to handle. I surely can’t beat points such as “you’re not a public figure, so your opinions don’t count”, and “the soldiers, whose choice it is to go to war, could beat you up if they ganged up on you so therefore you are an idiot”.
Feel free to leave now, and let the grownups talk.
Let’s strip away the obfustications.
The basic principle is simple:
“Put your money where your mouth is.”
Warmongers like Kilmeade can yell themselves red, but the truth is, they don’t believe what they’re saying enough to put anything they care about in harm’s way. At some level, even they understand that war is bad, therefore, they materially avoid it.
But, for some reason they can’t apply a simple empathetic principle, which is to say: “perhaps if I don’t want to kill or be killed then other people might feel the same. Maybe they have just as much of a desire to live a normal life as I do. Maybe the war is not such a good idea.”
Ulimately, they’re selling a war that they aren’t buying. That’s something their listeners deserve to know.
Good point, Buddha. Maybe if, God forbid, something should happen to you, the ambulance shouldn’t drive out to you because you’re not part of the paramedic team you think you deserve. Maybe we shouldn’t listen to every idiot with a blog, because 99.9% of blog writers don’t create their own blogging software, which means they don’t really believe in the cause they say they support. And maybe we shouldn’t listen to you, because you didn’t make the keyboard or PC you’re using to write that comment, which means you haven’t put your money where your mouth is. Your listensers deserve to know that.
Please, the practicality of what you’re suggesting was one of the very first arguments that was dealt with here.
I have been amused following this debate for the past week. Oracle has a propensity to compare apples to oranges (i.e. police, emt, garbage collection to warmongers). I work as a prosecuter in a small city and am surrounded by crappy defense lawyers and petty criminals who all use the same tactics to try and win their cases. They go round in circles like dogs chasing their tails, always having to get the last word, not unlike a 5 year old. What they all have in common, and Oracle I know you will relate to this, they aren’t getting any sex. Oracle, you claim to have a job, which means you must have some money, do yourself and left blogs a favor and go pay for some action. I promise you will feel better and have less time to come up with inane arguements. I know you will respond to this in your special way since you have to get the last word. We know what your missing in life ~ so sorry for you.
Please, the practicality of what you’re suggesting was one of the very first arguments that was dealt with here.
Only in your [irrational/insane] mind has anything been “dealt with” in this thread by you, Oracle.
In fact, your continual use of logical fallacies in this thread to avoid Mike’s original question to Brian Kilmeade is so laughably inept that I almost feel obligated to point them out, just in case you are not aware of them…which do you do not seem to be, apparently.
First of all: Why is it an invalid question to ask a loudmouthed, pro-war jerk like Brian Kilmeade–who is a public figure to boot–why he doesn’t serve in the war he calls for so vociferously? Why is it not a valid question to ask a guy who screams so loudly for a war in which his peers serve, but he does not, why he doesn’t serve? The answer is of course that IT IS a valid question. Some of us wish to hear his answer. What makes him so special that he won’t make the sacrifices he calls on his peers to make in this war he wants so badly?
Brian Kilmeade, after all, is a public figure with very public comments and opinions, so I am wondering why you think Mike can’t him ask that question.
Your arguments in this thread, such as, “If that is the case, why wouldn’t everyone who desires safe neighborhoods not serve in the police, blah, blah, blah, blah?” is an ivalid argument. It’s a stupid argument. Illogical. False. Phony. Disingenuous. Misleading. A red herring.
It is, in fact, a logical fallacy called a “red herring.” First, you haven’t answered the original question (which no one was asking you; Mike was asking Brian Kilmeade), and THEN you introduce a question that wanders off topic and evades the answering of the original question. What you do is try to make the original question invalid by use of an illogical, red herring argument. We’re not arguing about police and safe streets, after all. Or ambulance service. Or whatever else you’ve tried to introduce to invalidate Mike’s question to Brian Kilmeade.
Every argument you’ve used HAS NOT invalidated Mike’s question to Brian Kilmeade. It has simply tried to slip around it and avoid it.
Get it?
Actually, the analagous situation would be if I had publicly stated that there should not be ambulances, and then wanted one to drive me to the hospital.
_e.g.
ME: Ambulances are dumb. No more ambulances!
ME: Oh no, I spilled my coffee on my hard drive. Electrocuted! I think I need an ambulance.
MY CONSCIENCE: But you don’t believe in ambulances. Put your money where your mouth is.
ME: I stand by my statements; therefore I will drive myself to the hospital.
_equals:
KILMEADE: WAR RULZ! SO WHAT IF A LOT OF PEOPLE ON BOTH SIDES ARE KILLED AND/OR PERMANENTLY MANGLED!
MIKE: If you believe so strongly in this cause that you’re willing to have people die for it, people like your listener or your listener’s kids, why don’t you sign up? Put your money where your mouth is.
KILMEADE: YOU ARE RIGHT! I SHOULD JOIN THE MILITARY AND TAKE THE CHANCES THAT I SO VIGOROUSLY SUPPORT PEOPLE-WHO-ARE-NOT-ME TAKING.
_see?
So long and thanks for all the herring!
[Buddha]Actually, the analagous situation would be if I had publicly stated that there should not be ambulances, and then wanted one to drive me to the hospital.
Actually, no it wouldn’t. You’re comparing a positive-support situation (supporting the war) to a negative-support situation (being against ambulances), and expecting them to have the opposite outcome to prove one of them wrong. Furthermore, you’re confusing one’s beliefs with one’s public statements. Publicity of an individuals’s comments has nothing to do with determing their worth.
[popin-in]I work as a prosecuter in a small city and am surrounded by crappy defense lawyers and petty criminals who all use the same tactics to try and win their cases.
Any idiot law student knows that resorting to personal attacks can make any potential real arguments lose their impact, or make the attacker look like a fool. Congratulations, you’ve just succeeded in both. You must be a really shitty lawyer - like, Jack Thompson shitty. Do yourself a favor, go away, and come back when(/if?) you have a proper argument, so then you at least have a chance to redeem any small amount of dignity you may have once had.
[Alex]In fact, your continual use of logical fallacies in this thread to avoid Mike’s original question to Brian Kilmeade is so laughably inept that I almost feel obligated to point them out, just in case you are not aware of them…which do you do not seem to be, apparently.
“It’s not logical, rational, feasible, or possible to expect anyone with a pro-war stance to join the army.” How is that statement a logical fallacy? Maybe, under your flawed logic it is, but we’re in the human realm here, so try to keep up.
[Alex]Why is it an invalid question to ask a loudmouthed, pro-war jerk like Brian Kilmeade–who is a public figure to boot–why he doesn’t serve in the war he calls for so vociferously? Why is it not a valid question to ask a guy who screams so loudly for a war in which his peers serve, but he does not, why he doesn’t serve? The answer is of course that IT IS a valid question. Some of us wish to hear his answer. What makes him so special that he won’t make the sacrifices he calls on his peers to make in this war he wants so badly?
Firstly: my how you’ve changed your tone. Your last post made it clear that your objective was simply to prevent war supporters from ridiculing anti-war supporters (by ridiculing them back, of course). The logic was indeed flawed, because you weren’t applying it equally to those on both sides of the argument. Now you seem to have changed your argument yet again. Despite what you may think, no, I’m not stupid, so your confusion tactics won’t work.
Secondly: it’s not an invalid question to ask. It’s a question that’s based on an incredibly flawed (and thus invalid) argument, which simply makes it a very, very stupid question, not necessarily an invalid one.
Thirdly: do you really want an answer? Here’s one possiblity;
[You]Why don’t you serve in the war you call for so vociferously?
[insert name of generic war supporter here]Because it’s not feasible or logical. That’s the worst idea I’ve ever heard. We have already have an army for that. If you expected only the supporters of military action to fight, why should we even bother having a permanent military force? What are you going to do about things like training, ranks, equipment planning, or any other number of components of an army?
More realistically:
[You]Why don’t you serve in the war you call for so vociferously?
[Generic War Supporter]The army we have now is much more experienced than I could become within a matter of months. They have training that I could not possibly go through within the required time. Quite simply, they could do a better job than I ever could, and certainly not within the small time frame you’re expecting me to learn and practice being a soldier; which is why they’re in the army in the first place.
Or, something you might enjoy more:
[You]Why don’t you serve in the war you call for so vociferously?
[Generic War Supporter]Because I’m scared. I’m a pussy, a coward. Are you happy now? So what? That’s got nothing to do with my beliefs. When you find a real reason to be against the war, come see me. Until then, go fuck yourself.
[Alex]Your arguments in this thread, such as, “If that is the case, why wouldn’t everyone who desires safe neighborhoods not serve in the police, blah, blah, blah, blah?” is an ivalid argument. It’s a stupid argument. Illogical. False. Phony. Disingenuous. Misleading. A red herring.
It is, in fact, a logical fallacy called a “red herring.” First, you haven’t answered the original question (which no one was asking you; Mike was asking Brian Kilmeade), and THEN you introduce a question that wanders off topic and evades the answering of the original question. What you do is try to make the original question invalid by use of an illogical, red herring argument. We’re not arguing about police and safe streets, after all. Or ambulance service. Or whatever else you’ve tried to introduce to invalidate Mike’s question to Brian Kilmeade
It’s not a red herring. Nor is it a logical fallacy. Here, let me spell it out for you:
Your argument is that “one who believes in a war, should be willing to fight in that war”, correct?
So, because this is a suggested moral rule, it needs to be generalized into something usable by an ethical model. Let’s use Kantianism as an example. The First Formulation Categorical Imperitive states: “Act only from moral rules that you can at the same time will to be universal moral laws”.
So, from “one who believes in a war, should be willing to fight in that war” we can contrive the universal moral law “one who believes in a particular cause should be willing to involve themselves in that cause”.
This means that, in order for your argument to be valid, we should be able to substitute just about anything in as the ’cause’, and have that universally applied with success:
“One who believes in the right to medical care, should be willing to become a paramedic, nurse, or doctor”
“One who believes in the right to fire safety, should be willing to become a firefighter”
“One who believes in the right to safe streets, should be willing to join the police force”
Should we expect a paraplegic to become a practicing medical professional? NO.
Should we force hydrophobics/pyrophobics to become firefighters? NO.
Should we entrust constabulatory powers and lethal weapons to dangerous criminals? NO.
Can we rationally expect each individual in a society to successfuly fill all positions which they expect to be their right? NO.
As demonstrated, your moral theory cannot be applied individually to any other scenario rationally; let alone infinitely simultaneously. The only conclusion one could possibly come to is that your theory is not ethical. And it isn’t. Yet, I point that out to you with my initial analogies, as well as the multitudes of other explanations for why the majority of your views are totally incorrect, and you act like I’ve just tied you up, shot your children, and raped your wives. If you can’t understand what an analogy is, and believe me to be changing the subject, you really shouldn’t be debating here. If you think me pointing out your flawed arguments and logic was somehow “answering the question I wasn’t asked”, then you clearly can’t understand some simple rational thinking.
Nearly every time I post here, it’s only been to clarify, expand, or re-state a previous argument. I can only simplify my arguments and state the obvious so many times before the point loses substance and coherrance, and its initial intentions become lost. If you still can’t understand the very simple arguments presented, please just say so, so I don’t waste my time.
Oh, how you babble incessantly and dodge the original question like a fool, Oracle. At least you finally answered the question.
You make two assumptions here that have been wrong all along, so all your arguments have been to support false assumptions.
1) You assume we call all pro-war supporters “chickenhawks” and that this is an anti-war argument. Wrong and wrong. Only the most loudmouthed and hypocritical assholes in the pro-war group are afforded this pejorative.
2) You assume we call all pro-war supporters to enlist in the military. Once again, wrong. We just wonder why so many pro-war, manly he-men who are of age to serve, are MORE than capable of serving, and who call for war so loudly, won’t take up the call themseleves. That seems like a reasonable question to ask them. Why you don’t think is of no importance, Oracle. And you certainly haven’t been able to argue against asking that question very well; in fact you’ve dug yourself deeper and deeper into a hole of your own making.
For example:
My asking the most virulent pro-war supporters who are of age to serve and are capable of serving is not “illogical.” This is especially true now when the military is having tremendous difficulty getting fresh recruits and the military members on active duty, the Reserves, and National Guard are being asked to serve in war zones more than they should. I mean, after all, if the most capable and willing among us to call for war won’t serve the war they scream for, who will serve it? Why should anyone, for that matter?
Secondly:
The military is not like the police, fire department, emergency services, or any other public service job. Each time you use this baseless argument you further sink yourself into irrevelance.
Firstly, the military is not a career job or career choice like the others (although it can be; but it is not a requirement for serving). Most military members serve on a temporary basis of two and four-year enlistments.
Secondly, military service is NATIONAL service, meaning you serve the entire nation and not just the local community like the other jobs you’ve mentioned.
Thirdly, military service is far, far more dangerous and requires much more sacrifice than being a cop, fire fighters, or an ambulance driver. That is not to say those jobs are not important, but most cops, fire fighters, and ambulance drivers are better paid and face much less danger than soldiers in a war.
Now let’s deconstruct your most disgusting arguments to show not only how stupid you are, but also what an arrogant jerk and cowardly punk you are:
ORACLE: The army we have now is much more experienced than I could become within a matter of months. They have training that I could not possibly go through within the required time. Quite simply, they could do a better job than I ever could, and certainly not within the small time frame you’re expecting me to learn and practice being a soldier; which is why they’re in the army in the first place.
Bullshit. After 8 weeks of Basic Training, a further 2-6 months of Advanced Individual Training (AIT) in a job field, or Military Occupational Specialty (MOS), and a couple more months of On-the-job Training (OJT), I KNOW FOR A FACT that the military could make you an effective fighter. No other organization can indoctrinate you into their system like the military can. And since you continually try to prove what a clever little fucker you are on this web page, I am certain you are clever enough to serve. And I know this from personal experience; I was once a soldier, and before I enlisted I was a HUGE dork, yet after six months of military service I was a fully-trained fighting machine: fit, trained, motivated, ready, and willing to fight in a war. So stop bullshitting someone who knows, you arrogant little turd. Of all the piffle you’ve expressed in this thread, this is your most repugnant argument, especially to a military veteran like me.
ORACLE: Because it’s not feasible or logical [to make all chickenhawks serve]. That’s the worst idea I’ve ever heard. We have already have an army for that. If you expected only the supporters of military action to fight, why should we even bother having a permanent military force? What are you going to do about things like training, ranks, equipment planning, or any other number of components of an army?
No one said that ONLY the supporters of a war should go fight. This is the typical bullshit argument of the cowardly, loud-mouthed blowhards like you. All we are saying is that, if these loudmouths want a war so badly, WHY DON’T they go fight it instead of expecting their peers to do it? It’s a valid question in my opinion. My brother is an Army recruiter and he’s STARVING for recruits. So I am not sure why it’s “illogical” to ask perfectly capable, pro-war advocates to serve. After all, if we can’t get THEM to join, who in the fuck is going to enlist to fill our needs?
This so-called capable military of which you speak requires a constant flow of fresh recruits to fill the slots when others fulfill their service and are discharged (or are killed and wounded and maimed). This Army is not a static force made up of 100% permanent careerists. It needs new recruits every day. Thousands of them. And we’re running low on recruits, if you haven’t heard lately.
ORACLE: Because I’m scared. I’m a pussy, a coward. Are you happy now? So what? That’s got nothing to do with my beliefs. When you find a real reason to be against the war, come see me. Until then, go fuck yourself.
And now we have the essence of the Oracle argument. You seem to be deluded to think my “chickenhawk” pejorative has anything to do with being anti-war. I AM NOT ANTI-WAR. I am against this war in Iraq, but I am no pacifist or anti-war activist. I served in the Army. I put my money where my mouth is. I’d enlist AGAIN in a heartbeat if I were young enough. I’m AGAINST this war, yet I would still fight it. So, once again, it makes the question to the chickenhawks valid.
I am, personally, pro-military, simply because I served, I have friends serving—former Army comrades of mine, actually—and ALL OF THEM have gone way above and beyond the call to duty to serve (one of my friends is 43 and was retired, but got called back to serve in Iraq; another has done THREE tours in Iraq). Meanwhile I have to listen to loudmouthed, pro-war jerks babble endlessly about fighting this war and yet they don’t have the courage of conviction to serve. So to call them cowards and chickenhawks seems to me quite valid, considering the military NEEDS recruits, and if the most pro-war among us won’t fight, who the fuck will? Why should anyone serve if even our most virulently pro-war peers REFUSE to serve? What POSSIBLE excuses do they have? I want to hear them, if only for the benefit of me and the millions of other veterans in this country who put our asses on the line to protect snarky, loudmouth cowards who won’t return the favor and yet call (arrogantly and loudly) for their peers to do so.
And you’ve just answered our grand question; whether it was just a “mock” answer or not, it goes a long way to explaining the chickenhawks out there who dodge this question. Why won’t you, , serve a war you want so badly? Because you’re a coward and a pussy (your words). Thank you. That’s all we’re asking all the little non-serving, loudmouthed, virulently pro-war turds who refuse to serve to say. Go ahead and have any belief you want, no matter how repugnant, but at least now we know where you stand when the bills come due from this war.
I rest my case, folks.
Forget it Alex, you bitch slapped Oracle and his lame excuse for a debate all over the comments section and he still won’t say uncle. Unbelievable, he is like “Jason”, the monster that won’t die!
Oracle ~ “really shitty lawyer”
Your statement belies your hypocrisy ~ attempting to win an arguement with personal attacks, which you have done consistently throughout this thread.
Don’t think I didn’t notice that you still haven’t gotten laid.
BTW, you might want to give a call to your local recruiting center. They need as many pro-war loud mouthes as they can get their hands on. Some soldiers are on their third and fourth tours, and aren’t too happy about it.
Take note, we will be hearing from Oracle again ~ defending the indefensible ~ gotta get the last word no matter how pathetic. Die monster die.
Yea, I’ll just throw back in my 2 cents that Alex has decidely crushed you you little shit. Like I said earlier you’re trying to break this down into semantics and split hairs; the bottom line is these people (Kilmeade, Hannity, Oracle, Limbaugh, O’Reilly, Cheney, Kristol, etc., etc., etc., etc.) are born cowards. I don’t know if it’s a brain wiring issue, a nervous system thing or what but I’m glad I wasn’t born with it.
Create all the justifications you need to feel better about this.
YOU’VE CHANGED NOONE’S MIND HERE.
[popin-in]Oracle ~ “really shitty lawyer”
Your statement belies your hypocrisy ~ attempting to win an arguement with personal attacks, which you have done consistently throughout this thread.
Actually, I based that statement on fact. Remember, it’s not me who resorted to personal attacks. Maybe you’ve forgotten already. All you have to do is scroll up to see it. If you can’t work it out, here’s the gist of it;
[You people]If you support the war, Kilmeade, go fight it!
[Me]That’s not a valid argument. It’s undemocratic, illegal, immoral, illogical, unfeasible, …
(cue the endless posts simplifying the points over and over in the desperate hope at least one of you would comprehend it. Fail.)
[You]Fuck you and your stupid chicken friends fucking asshole!
[Alex]1) You assume we call all pro-war supporters “chickenhawks” and that this is an anti-war argument. Wrong and wrong.
So, where’s the posts calling anti-war supporters chickenhawks? Surely you wouldn’t be, say, a little bias would you now?
[Alex]2) You assume we call all pro-war supporters to enlist in the military. Once again, wrong.
Really?
[Mike]As many of you know, I’ve teamed up with JC CHristian and Operation Yellow Elephant to create a grassroots movement that has the goal of encouraging Brian Kilmeade of Fox News, a rabid war supporter, to enlist in the Army.
[Mike]then give them about half of your talking point before launching into an appeal for Kilmeade to fight the war himself.
It seems that, as obviously biased anti-war activists yourselves, you can’t even agree amongst yourselves. Honestly, sort yourselves out before making public comments like that. At least try and collaborate on a common point, rather than expecting coherance in a mix n match of various ideals, which really only serve to try to validate your pre-existing opinions, than to present a logical point.
[Alex]We just wonder why so many pro-war, manly he-men who are of age to serve, are MORE than capable of serving, and who call for war so loudly, won’t take up the call themseleves. That seems like a reasonable question to ask them.
When the war first started, 75% of US citizens supported the invasion. Why were you not calling for military service then? Where’s your army of 150 million?
[Alex]My asking the most virulent pro-war supporters who are of age to serve and are capable of serving is not “illogical.”
Well that almost legitimizes your point - instead of having all war supporters enlist, you call only for “the most virulent”. Congratulations. Now all you need is a metric to determine how strongly one supports the war, and a set point on that metric to determine when someone should or shouldn’t be called to enlist. Oh, what’s that you say? Something like that is impossible? Oh, damn, that’s too bad, I guess that makes your argument IN-FUCKING-VALID, like I’ve been saying all along, for those who were paying attention and have an IQ higher than their age (which for most you I assume is between 5 and 15).
[Alex]Firstly, the military is not a career job or career choice like the others (although it can be; but it is not a requirement for serving). Most military members serve on a temporary basis of two and four-year enlistments.
Last I checked, there was no conscription in the US.
[Alex]Secondly, military service is NATIONAL service, meaning you serve the entire nation and not just the local community like the other jobs you’ve mentioned.
So what your saying is, the person who “serves” 300 million people is like a God, but the person who only serves the million or so people in their community doesn’t count. What a selfish prick you are.
[Alex]Thirdly, military service is far, far more dangerous and requires much more sacrifice than being a cop, fire fighters, or an ambulance driver. That is not to say those jobs are not important, but most cops, fire fighters, and ambulance drivers are better paid and face much less danger than soldiers in a war.
But why stop at the military! Lets apply this incredibly intelligent thinking even further… to suicide bombers! As a suicide bomber, you don’t get paid - you’re expected to do it for your God. You don’t just serve your community, or even your country, but you serve everyone of your religion, plus your god(s) and other religious entities. That’s a pretty tall order. And, as a suicide bomber, you’re pretty much guaranteed to die; either by succeeding and blowing yourself up, or failing and being killed anyway. Best case scenario, you end up in jail for several years. Try telling me that’s not a dangerous job. By your standards, suicide bombers should be the only people able to legitimately have opinions, and should be worshipped for them. Yes, your arguments really are that incredibly stupid, and the sooner you understand that, the better.
[Alex]The military is not like the police, fire department, emergency services, or any other public service job.
And once again, it is ME that has answered the question which will be ignored, and YOU that has avoided all but the weakest of my arguments. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt, Alex, since you obviously weren’t paying attention when I proposed this, but now that you’re here, feel free to answer it:
If you are either a) against the Iraq war or b) think supporters of a particular service should enlist in that service (which of course has to ignore emergency services, because they’re not as dangerous, and thus aren’t important, as you say), then under either belief (or both) you would vicariously be in support of intelligence agencies, CT and other strike forces, or the UN, as obviously you wouldn’t want to take even a .5% attack certainty (for example) lightly. So, by saying that “the most virulent pro-war supporters” should serve if capable (assuming we do find a way to draw that line), you cannot avoid applying that logic to the anti-war supporter too (unless you’re willing to admit to your bias). So, if the virulent war supporter should serve in the military, the most virulent anti-war supporter should therefore serve in one or more of those agencies. But you don’t call for that, do you? Either you really don’t believe in the argument you’re making, or you use it purely to discredit those with a public view different to yours (ie. they support the war). You can’t apply the argument to only one group of people just to make yourself feel better.
This is the problem I’ve been mentioning all along. You’re quick to say what ‘cowards’ people like Kilmeade are, but when I point out that you should be either applying the same logic to both sides of the argument and to different types of services, or not at all, you either ignore it, pass it off as irrellevant, or respond purely with flaming and a sense of self-satisfaction, like you’re somehow better than everyone with a different view to you.
[Alex]After 8 weeks of Basic Training, a further 2-6 months of Advanced Individual Training (AIT) in a job field, or Military Occupational Specialty (MOS), and a couple more months of On-the-job Training (OJT), I KNOW FOR A FACT that the military could make you an effective fighter. No other organization can indoctrinate you into their system like the military can. And since you continually try to prove what a clever little fucker you are on this web page, I am certain you are clever enough to serve. And I know this from personal experience; I was once a soldier, and before I enlisted I was a HUGE dork, yet after six months of military service I was a fully-trained fighting machine: fit, trained, motivated, ready, and willing to fight in a war. So stop bullshitting someone who knows, you arrogant little turd. Of all the piffle you’ve expressed in this thread, this is your most repugnant argument, especially to a military veteran like me.
I’ve been a soldier for more than 8 years. I served in Iraq for 15 months. I’ve avoided mentioning that fact because I knew it was irrelevant to the debate, and it still is, but it seems you’re too damn stupid to understand that so there you go. But believe me, the last thing we need is pissy little noobs fresh from boot camp to come in acting all brave, then getting all scared and bitching that they want to go home. Shit like that might hold up in times of conscription. It might hold up in the old-style battles of the World Wars, Korean War, or possibly even Vietnam. But we don’t live in those times anymore. Todays wars are about technological warfare. They’re about urban warfare. What we need is experienced, small tactical strike forces. We need engineers and technicians to make sure the technology and equipment we rely on doesn’t blow up in our faces. We need reliable intelligence so we don’t a) waste our time or b) put ourselves in unnecessary danger. This is not the kind of combat support you’re going to get by forcing some random guy, who happens to support the war, to go train for 6 months (during which time we may not even be in combat anymore) and come join us expecting us to protect them.
[Alex]Thousands of them. And we’re running low on recruits, if you haven’t heard lately.
Maybe if you stopped all this bullshit about “all jackass war supporters should go fight the war”, potential recruits wouldn’t be hesitant about joining out of fear some fuckwit like yourself is going to brand them as warmongers.
[Alex]And now we have the essence of the Oracle argument. You seem to be deluded to think my “chickenhawk” pejorative has anything to do with being anti-war.
As I’ve pointed out numerous times, it wouldn’t be seen as an anti-war argument if you applied it uniformly to all peoples, in all services. Then, it would be a logical opinion. Just a very stupid one. I suspect that the only reason you rabidly avoid applying it uniformly, is because I’ve already pointed out how the logic in it breaks down when applied to those situations, thus invalidating it as an argument.
[Alex]I AM NOT ANTI-WAR. I am against this war in Iraq
Hey, you know what the number one defence of white supremicists is? “I don’t hate black people, I just don’t want them in my country.”
[Alex]And you’ve just answered our grand question; whether it was just a “mock” answer or not, it goes a long way to explaining the chickenhawks out there who dodge this question. Why won’t you, , serve a war you want so badly? Because you’re a coward and a pussy (your words). Thank you. That’s all we’re asking all the little non-serving, loudmouthed, virulently pro-war turds who refuse to serve to say. Go ahead and have any belief you want, no matter how repugnant, but at least now we know where you stand when the bills come due from this war.
I guess the fact that I have served (and still do, but not in Iraq) has just fucked you up completely, huh? Maybe if you actually stuck to the point of the debate, rather than dragging this into your own twisted view, you wouldn’t have put yourself in that situation.
You want to know my views so badly? Fine.
Yes, I have served in the army, and in Iraq, for a coalition country.
Do I think the US governemnt lied about their reasons for invading? Probably. Governments lie all the time, so it wouldn’t surprise me. Frankly, I’d be more scared if the US government and their departments really was that incompetent, than if they were simply lying for whatever reason (lying at least leaves open the possibly that they had ulterior (non-sinister) motives for invading).
Do I support they war? That’s a stupid question only a fuckwit would impose. Like any logical stance, you need to break it down into its components.
Were we justified in invading? Hell no. Luckily for us though, 20/20 hindsight is a wonderful thing. Can you honestly say you would have done nothing given the evidence we are lead to beleive your president was presented with?
Do I believe the invasion was “necessary”, assuming the evidence was correct? Absolutely. I would have done the same thing.
Do I believe the war was a resulting success? Absolutely. If you don’t, maybe you should look at real body counts, rather than relying on the figures in the media (a media which you yourselves recognize as corrupt, which I happen to agree with).
Do I believe we’ve overstayed our welcome in Iraq? Probably. Why I say that I’ll leave to your own imagination. I might believe it’s simply time for us to leave. I might believe we should leave the Iraqis to sort themselves out, since they invariably brought this (Saddam’s rule, and his eventual demise) upon themselves. I might believe we should let terrorists gain power in the country, so we can be free to attack them next time without prejudice (or leave it to other countries). But I don’t have to explain myself to you morons.
I won’t be posting any more. It’s become clear that most of you are simply too stupid to understand even the simplest of points. The rest of you probably just feel threatened by a superior argument, which is why you resort to any means necessary to avoid it (and act so aggressively when I corner you with a point). And since it’s impossible to have an intelligent debate with morons (either by nature, by choice, or as a defence mechanism), there really is no point in presenting any more arguments to your blatantly idiotic views. Farewell. I hope people like you find a society more tolerating of your ignorance.
LOL…now Orcale is lying.
That’s another lousy debate tool.
And he’s still dancing around the entire debate, avoiding the central issues, and trying to change the subject.
Yeah, I bet you serve in the military. Yesiree. I believe it for about a millisecond.
It’s a strange world we live in when the most ardent advocates for war–who are capable of serving–won’t serve. That would be fine (but does call to mind how effete and cowardly our most rah-rah, pro-war types have become), but what is worse is the bullshit excuses and lame arguments made in defense of this lazy, cowardly, and hypocritical attitude of our so-call “patriotic” brethren on the right.
I am not calling for “150 million” to join the Army, just the 30-150,000, hardcore, Rush-loving, fist-pumping assholes who ARE qualified to serve, who have supported this war with loud proclamations but with little sacrifice on their part, and who spit on and cast aspersions upon those opposed to the war.
That’s not asking much, is it?
Finally, everyone look at the logic presented by this dipshit, Oracle, who presents arguments using illogical assumptions like this that contradicts itself in the same breath:
What we need is experienced, small tactical strike forces. We need engineers and technicians to make sure the technology and equipment we rely on doesn’t blow up in our faces. We need reliable intelligence so we don’t a) waste our time or b) put ourselves in unnecessary danger. This is not the kind of combat support you’re going to get by forcing some random guy, who happens to support the war, to go train for 6 months (during which time we may not even be in combat anymore) and come join us expecting us to protect them.
And where, pray tell, are the ranks of this glorious strike force going to come if no one is enlisting, especially the most capable and pro-war among us?
Funny, but the problem with draftees in Vietnam, for instance, was that most were opposed to the war, and many more were substandard in terms of physical, mental, and emotional capabilities. The best and brightest got student deferments, so the burden of getting drafted fell on the lower classes. If anyone remembers McNamara’s infamous “100,000,” one can realize the futility of a draft that exempts the most capable among us to serve and only calls on the poorest and those of lesser capability to serve. Draftees did quite well in World War II, when men from every social category were drafted. In that war men were motivated by a sense of national purpose and shared the sacrifice among all citizens. I am not calling for a draft; I am merely pointing out the insane bullshit of Oracle’s argument.
Oh, but the right-wing, pro-war kids are not McNamara’s 100,000, nosiree. They attend elite colleges (or at least good state schools) and mostly come from middle and upper middle class backgrounds. Most are physically fit and quite capable of serving. That, coupled with the fact they are rabidly pro-war, would make one think they’d make excellent soldiers. They are not “some random guy” (as were McNamara’s 100,000) but are in fact the very kind of recruits the military needs: pro-war, motivated, and easily led.
I certainly can ask the hundreds of thousands (millions) of dirty hippies and goth dorks and punk skaters and other losers who are of military age and are opposed to the war to join. But then wouldn’t that violate your “we don’t want no pussies in our Army” dictum? But to call on the best and brightest who support the war seems to me to be prudent, if I simply used your bullshit logic and not even mine.
You seem to imply we cannot ask ANYONE to make the sacrifice. And you seem to imply we MOST CERTAINLY cannot call upon the most ardent supporters of a war to join. That’s the dumbest fucking thing I have ever heard. So who do we ask, Oracle?
So you see, the mentality that Oracle represents–and there are plenty out there who possess this insanity–is clouded with faulty logic, insane notions backed by little fact, a knee-jerk arrogance, and a complete lack of doubt that makes them laughable, if only for the fact the current people in power also suffer from these maladies.
And our military HAS suffered. Badly. We’re luck there are still kids who will enlist, but the numbers are dwindling, and there will come a time–if it hasn’t happened already–where there will be a crisis situation in our armed forces where we don’t have enough motivated recruits to join.
Which makes it even MORE difficult for those serving.
And for the record, Oracle, my opposition to the invasion of Iraq back in 2002-2003 was that I knew if we tried to occupy it, it would turn into the VERY mess it is today, rife with sectarian violence and mayhem (and would turn Iraq into another Somalia; VOILA! IT IS!), that it would be IMPOSSIBLE for a Western nation to try to accomplish such a stupidly perilous mission for such little gain for our national defense.
But of course no one on the right wing would listen. When I expressed such things, the pro-war idiots would call me a traitor. But at least I tried. No I am calling on these assholes to do their part for their country. I am not sure why you find that so repugnant, but, then again, you’re nuts.
Oracle, [You]Fuck you and your stupid chicken friends fucking asshole!
Never said it but I definitly thought it! Subconciously you only attributed that fine quote to me because you equate me with truth.
Hey, you know what the number one defence of white supremicists is? “I don’t hate black people, I just don’t want them in my country.”
Besides your piss pour spelling (defense, supremacist), which shows your obvious lack of education, you also continue to confuse your apples with oranges. Each of your responses has entirely missed the point; my guess is you are trying to salve your lack of manhood.
And finally, I won’t be posting any more. It’s become clear that most of you are simply too stupid to understand even the simplest of points. The rest of you probably just feel threatened by a superior argument, which is why you resort to any means necessary to avoid it (and act so aggressively when I corner you with a point). And since it’s impossible to have an intelligent debate with morons (either by nature, by choice, or as a defence mechanism), there really is no point in presenting any more arguments to your blatantly idiotic views. Farewell. I hope people like you find a society more tolerating of your ignorance.
GOOD RIDDANCE the monster has got to go lick his wounds or the dogs balls ~ whichever comes first.
BTW, you know this guy Oracle never served because he never stated troop, rank, VVA#, nada. One thing you know is true about Oracle ~ though he never confirmed or denied ~ was his lack of enjoyment with the opposite or same sex. When he said he was part of the “coalition” of the dragged into a quagmire, he let us all know he doesn’t even live in this country and isn’t a citizen so he should mind his own phoney business. Best part is he is deperate to pretend he is intelligent ~ deluded soul ~ crawl back under a rock. I know you are reading this cause you can’t help yourself ~ when the dog gets done fucking your ass you have my permission to respond.
I know I said I wouldn’t post again, but I just wanted to wrap up a couple of points you’ve since introduced. After all, letting you think you’ve earned any kind of honour would be a crime against humanity.
1) My spelling. popin-in, maybe if you weren’t such an ignoramus, you’d realize that the rest of the country spells differently to you Americans. Defence is indeed the proper way to spell the word. Supremicist was a typo, but then none of you are immune to that. I guess I should “subconciously” (sic) “pour” (sic) my piss-poor spelling elsewhere. If I wanted to ignore the real arguments and instead point out stupid shit like minor spelling errors as you’re doing now, I would have done so a long time ago: but not all semi-intelligent people are as egotistical as yourself.
“ZOMG! that idiot just used a colon instead of a semi-colon lets point that out and nitpick on the presentation instead of focusing on the content! LOLZ!!!11″
2) I frankly don’t give a shit if you believe I’m a soldier or not. I know what I am. If all you have left is crap like “oh yeah? well you know what I think? I think you’re not really a solider at all, so fuck you!”, surely even the most moronic of fools could see it’s a pathetic desperation tactic.
3) Your criticism of “less dangerous services” such as emergency services is total bullshit. Perhaps you fail to realize that even the army has a multitude of positions where the personnel aren’t in any immediate danger - intelligence, reconnaissance, snipers, engineers, officers, medical staff are all examples of respectable military positions with close to no danger (or at least, much less danger) under normal circumstances. Positions that, without which, an army cannot run.
4) My sexual relations with my wife are none of your god damn business, which is why I didn’t answer it. Your constant reference to it merely serves to show your true ignorance, since you obviously fail to realize how completely irrelevant it is to any of the discussion here.
5) You accuse me of avoiding questions or arguments that you propose. I’ve taken each one of your arguments, and countered them. I’ve quoted all your questions, and directly answered them. I propose new arguments, and they get ignored. You’re either not paying attention, can’t answer me so accuse me of doing something that is in fact what YOU are doing, or you want me to answer questions you haven’t even asked yet. Try telling me that’s not retarded.
6)Oracle, [You]Fuck you and your stupid chicken friends fucking asshole!
Never said it but I definitly thought it! Subconciously you only attributed that fine quote to me because you equate me with truth.
Don’t flatter yourself. It was a generic ‘you’, not you in particular, you’re really not that important. I was in fact paraphrasing, and no, it’s not an exaggeration of the kind of shit your bum-buddies have posted here:
[Jeremy]F*ck you and your CHICKENHAWK, CHICKENSHIT buddies.
If you don’t see what I mean, you really are as stupid as you sound.
7) Your blantant hyprocricy. I really wouldn’t care if you called people like Kilmeade whatever insult you liked; as long as, whilst under the guise of a rational argument, you applied equal terms to anti-war supporters; either that, or admitted that you do it simply to make yourselves feel better. But you don’t do either.
I don’t post my military details, and you automatically assume it’s because I’m lying, not that my military/civillian status is relevant anyway, and even if it was I wouldn’t post them here because I value my privacy. But the others here state numerous times about themselves or people they know serving, and don’t post any details either; and it fails to even get a mention.
I make one or two spelling errors (some of which are cultural linguistics differences rather than typos), and you accuse me of false intelligence. One of your own people makes a plethora of mistakes, lack of punctuation, and other errors in grammer; but as long as they agree with you, it’s ok.
Please, grow up. Apply the same points to other ideals and scenarios (which I’ve already done for you, to show how your points fail under any other circumstances), or accept the fact that your only goal is to spread idiotic FUD.
Feel free to directly respond to any of these counter-points, if you can. They’re numbered, to make it easy for your simple minds, so there’s no excuse for being confused, or “forgetting” to respond to them. Try to stay on topic too, and answer intelligently; no, “fuck you!” is not a legitimate argument.
Oops, nearly forgot to reply to Alex’s other points. Not that she deserves a response anyway, since she can’t even decide on which of the 10 definitions of “chickenhawk” she wants to use, but I guess it would be unfair to discriminate against the mentally challenged.
[Alex]I am not calling for “150 million” to join the Army, just the 30-150,000, hardcore, Rush-loving, fist-pumping assholes who ARE qualified to serve, who have supported this war with loud proclamations but with little sacrifice on their part, and who spit on and cast aspersions upon those opposed to the war.
That’s not asking much, is it?
Actually, yes it is. It’s called being anti-democratic and discriminatory, and is no different to expecting Afro-Americans or Jews to join above everyone else. And of course, your bias shows when you fail to point out what services others should join instead, in order to avoid an invasion (as I’ve mentioned several times, which has constantly been ignored or classified as irrelevant). You also fail to mention where you would draw the line on one’s “hardcore” support, also previously pointed out (and ignored).
[Alex]I certainly can ask the hundreds of thousands (millions) of dirty hippies and goth dorks and punk skaters and other losers who are of military age and are opposed to the war to join. But then wouldn’t that violate your “we don’t want no pussies in our Army” dictum? But to call on the best and brightest who support the war seems to me to be prudent, if I simply used your bullshit logic and not even mine.
Now you’re putting words in my mouth. I never said or implied that. What I DID imply, was that fresh meat is not a help on the field in urban combat. Your “pussies” are more than free to join the army (under their own free will, or given an ultimatum like “get a job or join the army”, which I would support; not because YOU say they should) - but they shouldn’t be in tactical warfare until they’re ready for it, rather than immediately from boot camp. 6 months is not enough time to prepare for event the most grunt-ish of tactical warfare, let alone any of the more specialized fields.
This clarfication invalids your further points, up until:
[Alex]And for the record, Oracle, my opposition to the invasion of Iraq back in 2002-2003 was that I knew if we tried to occupy it, it would turn into the VERY mess it is today, rife with sectarian violence and mayhem (and would turn Iraq into another Somalia; VOILA! IT IS!), that it would be IMPOSSIBLE for a Western nation to try to accomplish such a stupidly perilous mission for such little gain for our national defense.
You’re really confusing yourself here. Opposition to US/coalition occupation of Iraq, fine. Let them rebuild the country themselves after we screw it up for them, if that’s your stance. But occupation has nothing to do with the outcome of an invasion, or justification of the invasion itself; unless you could be 100% certain, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that any invasion would eventually lead to a forceful and unwanted occupation. But don’t fool yourself into thinking that you could’ve predicted that.
Just knew poor, pathetic Oracle couldn’t stay away.
Oracle, as you tie yourself in a knot to further make a fool of yourself, the laughs just keep coming.
-”your bias shows when you fail to point out what services others should join instead, in order to avoid an invasion (as I’ve mentioned several times, which has constantly been ignored or classified as irrelevant)”.
–for good reason it has been tossed in the dust bin, if you lived in this country you would be aware of the fact that an invasion isn’t number 1 on the to do list. We are way too busy invading other countries to worry about our own borders. Your insane paranoia makes it all the more fun to antagonize you.
-”you’d realize that the rest of the country spells differently to you Americans”.
–ah ha, and what part of the country would you be refering to, Alabama, Kentucky, or maybe Germany or Austria? You have yourself so worked up in a simian frenzy you don’t know what the hell your talking about.
-”Any idiot law student knows that resorting to personal attacks can make any potential real arguments lose their impact, or make the attacker look like a fool”
-”even the most moronic of fools could see it’s a pathetic desperation tactic”.
-”unfair to discriminate against the mentally challenged”.
-”if you weren’t such an ignoramus”
–and on and on it goes, so many insults, so little time. Please try and come up with something just a tad more creative, your starting to bore me.
-”I frankly don’t give a shit if you believe I’m a soldier or not. I know what I am”
–You obviously do care or you wouldn’t be crying like a little baby. You, on the other hand, don’t have any idea what you are. If you did you would be so shamed by your lack of honesty and integrity that you would most assuredly end your own life. Toxic ignorance does not justify life.
-”My sexual relations with my wife are none of your god damn business, which is why I didn’t answer it.”
–Here you are wrong, wrong, wrong for it is not only my business, but the business of any one reading this thread. You have come to this blog to attack any one who doesn’t agree with you for one reason only, you sir are a frustrated lonely person who has no love and, without a doubt,hasn’t got a single person that cares about you. If we could encourage you to get out some and get some your anger would disappear and you possibly might be able to think peace instead of war.
-”Your criticism of “less dangerous services” such as emergency services is total bullshit”.
–Again, I never said that, but what I will say is that this war was a war of choice, rather than necessity. Using your deluded logic every one in my community would have to go to the next town over, set fire to their houses, shoot their families, then call an ambulance and the garbage men to clean up the mess. This has been stated before by others and you seem to some how miss the point. If you think this sounds silly then you are getting the picture of just what an asshole you are. If you think this is comparing those pesky apples and oranges, then you finally understand that we are right and you are wrong. In this country their are laws that protect people from those who incite hate crimes — with that in mind Kilmead has 2 choices ~ go to jail or go to war.(Bush and his pack of cronies deserve the same)
-”But occupation has nothing to do with the outcome of an invasion, or justification of the invasion itself; unless you could be 100% certain, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that any invasion would eventually lead to a forceful and unwanted occupation. But don’t fool yourself into thinking that you could’ve predicted that”.
–Of all the stupid things you have said throughout this thread this one tops all the rest. I really can’t believe that you are this willfully ignorant. Get your nose out of Fox news and Rupert Murdocks ass. Honestly, I don’t believe you could possibly be this misguided. Millions of people marched in the streets for this reason, among many others, to stop this invasion. Just because you didn’t see the war profiteering, oil grabbing bastards for what they are, doesn’t mean others are quite so simple minded. I think Vallery Plame, Richard Clark, and even the devil Michael Moore, among many others, would take issue with your utter lack of informed arguement.
You can keep you head in the sand all you want, the fact remains that all those who make public policy, incite violence on a public platform to the masses and are of age or their children are of age, must join the ranks of the brave and proud. Chickenhawk stands. Pick the zit all you want, it WILL NOT get you laid. Won’t bring you love. Won’t make you any friends. I decided this time to give you one of your own long winded, nightmare responses so you would have something to think about while jerking off or beating the wife for not giving you any. I’m sure I’ll be hearing from you but I won’t be able to respond for a while — going on vacation with the family to visit friends. Something you are missing.
ORACLE: I won’t be posting any more.
I guess you broke that promise! Can you perhaps give us some secret sign when you are REALLY quitting, Oracle? Maybe a sly nod or a subtle wink will suffice. Or a cut-off sign.
Since you claim to be of such a high moral fiber, should we assume you are a liar when you say you are quitting but don’t, or are you just a neurotic fussbudget who can’t stand not getting in the last word? Either way, it proves your mental instability and squirrelly nature. Personally, I can continue to hack away at your effete and vapid arguments forever. I’m relentless and quite enjoy a healthy, no-holds-barred argument. Each time you post on here you expose a further level of your puerile intellect and the complete laughability of your knee-jerk views, and I am more than willing to be your confessor and psychoanalyst and guide you ever so slowly to the enlightenment and mental stability that you so desperately lack.
ORACLE: Farewell. I hope people like you find a society more tolerating of your ignorance.
I see. Goodness, I wonder where you found the strength and courage to continue arguing with us intolerant rubes, morons, and assholes after this rather melodramatic farewell a few comments upthread. Should I contact the Pope to begin your canonization process? I mean, it takes a saint-like fortitude to soldier on the way you have in this thread, fighting the good fight in this “war of ideas.”
Pray tell: Are you done NOW? Or should we intolerant morons wait with baited breath to be handed more shiny pearls of your wisdom? When does farewell REALLY mean farewell, Oracle?
Can’t you see what self-hating morons we are and how we long, with every molecule of our being, to read your wise and balanced views in order to cleanse ourselves of our polemical sins and abject intellectual profligacy? To see the folly of our ways? To have the soothing light of reason, of which you are the source, shine upon us until we find our way out of the darkness of our ignorance and prejudice?
By “country” I of course meant “world”, maybe if your head wasn’t shoved so far up your ass/arse you would’ve realized that. So, instead of actually responding intelligently, you again show how utterly pathetic you are and avoid absolutely everything proposed by my posts. You’re really not doing yourself any favors. Woo woo! All aboard the Clue Train! Last stop: you.
Here’s a simplified response to the pathetic comments you call “arguments”:
[popin-in]if you lived in this country you would be aware of the fact that an invasion isn’t number 1 on the to do list. We are way too busy invading other countries to worry about our own borders.
So…you’re too busy invading other countries to worry about prioritizing invasion? Huh? And how does that relate to passive military action (eg. intelligence, surveillance) as opposed to aggressive military action?
[popin-in]Again, I never said that, but what I will say is that this war was a war of choice, rather than necessity. Using your deluded logic every one in my community would have to go to the next town over, set fire to their houses, shoot their families, then call an ambulance and the garbage men to clean up the mess. This has been stated before by others and you seem to some how miss the point.
It seems you’re confused. Those scenarios are what would happen if your chickenhawk “logic” was applied to any other situation. But yes, you’re right, they do show how absolutely absurd you are.
[popin-in]Just because you didn’t see the war profiteering, oil grabbing bastards for what they are, doesn’t mean others are quite so simple minded.
Ahh, and here we are, we finally find out what kind of person you are. That oil that you “acquired” from the Iraqis must feel pretty sweet huh? I guess it’s like, free petrol for all now. Oh, what’s that you say? The oil fields have remaind in Iraqi posession, and oil prices are skyrocketing? Damn, there goes that theory, much like your other baseless accusations (aka conspiracy theories).
[popin-in]the fact remains that all those who make public policy, incite violence on a public platform to the masses and are of age or their children are of age, must join the ranks of the brave and proud. Chickenhawk stands.
I’m just going to go ahead and assume you don’t actually know what ‘public policy’ means. Kilmeade is not one of those people, nor are most of the others you brand as “chickenhawks”. Perhaps you’d also like to produce some quotes of where these people actually incite violence, as opposed to simply calling for an invasion, which doesn’t nececssarily imply violence at all, unless there’s resistance; which there has been, from militants and terrorists. Basically, cowards. Much like yourself.
[Me]Your criticism of “less dangerous services” such as emergency services is total bullshit
[popin-in]Again, I never said that
[Alex]Thirdly, military service is far, far more dangerous and requires much more sacrifice than being a cop, fire fighters, or an ambulance driver. That is not to say those jobs are not important, but most cops, fire fighters, and ambulance drivers are better paid and face much less danger than soldiers in a war.
Alex, popin-in, same difference. You all have the exact same stupid hive mind. It’s too bad you contradict yourselves so often, otherwise you might have come close to making, at the very best, valid points.
[popin-in]If we could encourage you to get out some and get some your anger would disappear and you possibly might be able to think peace instead of war.
As I remember it, it was you people who attacked me, not the other way around. You can check for yourself, all you have to do is scroll up. Living in peace, huh? Do have any idea what that even means? Do you even know what your country has gone through in order to give you that peace? And the right to criticize others with no reason? Don’t they teach you any history in your schools? Or did you just skip school, so you could go protest some bullshit thing or other?
[popin-in]Here you are wrong, wrong, wrong for it is not only my business, but the business of any one reading this thread. You have come to this blog to attack any one who doesn’t agree with you for one reason only, you sir are a frustrated lonely person who has no love and, without a doubt,hasn’t got a single person that cares about you.
Firstly, I didn’t come here to attack anyone, merely point out how stupid this chickenhawk bullshit is. You have only yourselves to blame for the flaming.
Secondly, just what the hell are going to do if I go into details about my private life? Ignore them, like every single other point I’ve made? Assume that I’m lying? Ridicule me? Ok, let’s see what happens if we use your “logic” here, on you:
What’s your real name, popin-in?
What’s your rank, unit, and ID?
What’s your body count?
What’s your full address?
What’s your phone number?
How often do you have sex?
Do you like to give it to other men, or receive it from other men?
How often do you beat up on women?
And remember, according to your logic, it’s your moral obligation to respond truthfully to all those questions, otherwise your opinions don’t count. And using your tactics, even if you do respond truthfully to every single question, I can just accuse you of lying, to hide what a pathetic little boy you really are. So in other words, there’s no way you can win.
I hope you and your husband have fun in Thailand.
Alex, maybe I’m just a guy who has little tolerance for the fucked up biased views of a bunch of self-indulgent little pricks. It should also be noted that none of you have given up posting, either, so maybe it is YOU who are the one who has a neurotic obession with getting the last word?
You know, apart from the fact that your “last word” was nothing but flaming, attempting to be passed off as valid points.
At least grow a pair, and admit to your bias. At least admit that your “arguments” are nothing but trolling, flaming, flamebaiting and all that other Good Stuff. But please, don’t pass them off as the moral crusades you either truly believe they are, are don’t want to admit that they’re not out of fear of humiliation. That’s all I ask. I promise I won’t ridicule you if you do admit to either of those.
It should also be noted that none of you have given up posting, either, so maybe it is YOU who are the one who has a neurotic obession with getting the last word?
Hey, I never once said I was quitting like you did. No melodramatic “fond farewells” from me, nosiree. However, we’re all waiting for you to fulfill your vow to quit posting here. Do you always make promises you don’t keep, or are just just a liar? Which one is it?
Alex, maybe I’m just a guy who has little tolerance for the fucked up biased views of a bunch of self-indulgent little pricks.
I thought you said WE were the intolerant ones, not you! Moreover, it’s good to see you’re keeping this thread up in the lofty heights of civility, high-minded idealism, and gracious intercourse while the rest of us dwell in the gutter with our foul language, cruel pejoratives, and vile ad hominems.
I mean, that was your argument early on, right, about how civil and intellectual you and your arguments were, and how you found all those distasteful and juvenile ad hominems attacks upon you by all us drooling neanderthals to be so beneath you and of such little intellectual value? So once again you contradict yourself magnificently.
I never claimed I was taking the high road in this argument, nor did I ever claim to be on a higher moral ground when speaking to you. But you did, and now look at what a repugnant and irate potty mouth you have become! You’re coming unglued right before our very eyes, and it is not a pretty sight.
At least grow a pair, and admit to your bias. At least admit that your “arguments” are nothing but trolling, flaming, flamebaiting and all that other Good Stuff.
And what bias is that? That I can’t stand loudmouth, right-wing, fist-pumping, armchair warmongers who refuse to serve their cause while others fight and die for it? God, what a terrible bias to possess! I feel so ashamed! I’m such a creep! A pox on me and my kin! Please guide me out of this horribly unfair hate state in which I dwell, Oracle!
But please, don’t pass them off as the moral crusades you either truly believe they are, are don’t want to admit that they’re not out of fear of humiliation.
Who said anything about my being on a “moral crusade,” other than you? And why do you have this neurotic need to demand that I do and say exactly what you want me to? I mean, talk about being undemocratic! Are you, Oracle, the despot of blogging comments, ruling by some Internet divine right, and the rest of us are mere subjects to your majesty? Should I agree with you merely because you demand me to, oh great one?
It should also be noted that none of you have given up posting, either, so maybe it is YOU who are the one who has a neurotic obession with getting the last word?
I am just waiting for you to quit like you claimed you were about ten comments ago. When does “farewell” REALLY mean “farewell” in your Bizarro World, Oracle? When can we expect to hold you to your word? Or does your word mean nothing?
Alex, I’m going to ignore popin-in because he’s clearly lost his marbles. I’m guessing it’s a nervous breakdown from being confronted with arguments he cannot defeat. I’m going to appeal to you directly, Alex. I want you to forget about all the bullshit that’s been posted here. Erase it from memory, and wipe the slate clean.
Done? Good. Now, by your own comments, you say the definition of a “chickenhawk” is essentially one who insults others for having a differring opinion. Is that the general gist of it? Ok. Now, I want you to think seriously about this; can you honestly sit there and tell me that the best way to deal with these so-called chickenhawks is to either: a) insult them back, or b) call for them to join the military?
If it really isn’t about their views, or how and where they present those views, or whether or not they’ve served - as you say it isn’t - and it is simply about the way they ridicule their opponents, is it really the best thing to do to lower yourselves to their level? Is calling for them to join the military the only way you’ll be satisfied?
Why don’t you try something else?
Ignore them. Publicly state that their arguments primarily consist of praise in like-minded thinkers, and insults to opponents. Act intelligently about it. But for god’s sake, lowering yourself to their level and doing exactly the same thing (spreading FUD about opponents) is not the way to get your point across. That is the argument I initally made, which I was ridiculed for. How can you call that justice?
Oracle, DOUCHE BAG, nouf said.
Exactly the response I’d expect from a dolt with no argument, and unwillingness to admit to their double standards.
Oracle, I’m back from vacation and well rested ~ unfortunately for you who has obviously been lurking here waiting weeks for attention. Now let us see who has lost whose marbles, hhhmmmmmm. While I was gone I see you got busy begging Alex to pay attention, but he obviously got bored with your Tom foolery, I on the other hand love watching you continue to make an ass of yourself. I have shown your comments to a crew in the office, including a few judges, who have also found you to be a very sad specimin indeed, a good laugh has been had by all at your expense. Please continue to respond, it can get quite dull here in the summer. When the holidays roll around I won’t be able to pay attention to you seeing as it can get very busy, but for now, please keep us entertained.
–I’m going to appeal to you directly, Alex. I want you to forget about all the bullshit that’s been posted here. Erase it from memory, and wipe the slate clean.
hahahhahhhahhhhah ~~ this is too funny, holy shit, I think Alex saw the homo and ran for the hills.
–Why don’t you try something else?
Ignore them.
bwaaahaahhahahahhaha, I do believe Alex has taken your advice and decided to ignore you
–I’m going to ignore popin-in
–Exactly the response I’d expect from a dolt with no argument, and unwillingness to admit to their double standards.
Do you have any idea how pathetic you are? I bet the “wife” has a good time shoving a 12″ dildo up your ass, just to shut you up. EEEEEEWWWWWWWW, it feels so good Alex, er I mean honey, shove it up there again, pahleasssse. You can’t help but contradict yourself and you can’t ignore me, its called OCD. Get help before you go on some kind of rampage and hurt yourself. Pay that hooker on the corner to ease you through this rough patch you are having.
Oh my, popin-in, where’s your argument gone? Oh, that’s right, you never had one to begin with. Thus proving me correct all along. Thanks for helping me out there, buddy.
And now we’ve gotten to the “meat” of your mind set. You’d rather insult people superior to you because you feel insecure, and you know you can’t beat them. You know who you remind me of? Religious nuts. You worship a belief for no reason other than “it’s what the cool kids are doing”. Mike Stark is your version of Jesus. You know your reasoning has no factual or logical basis, and when backed into a corner when your beliefs are challenged (like you were several posts ago), you get all defensive, and act even more irrational than you were to begin with - often using insults to draw attention away from the fact that you can’t explain your beliefs. Am I right popin-in? You’re just a good little God-fearing alter boy, aren’t you? Go on back to your alter boy friends, go on and show them just how great an “intelligent debater” you are.
lalalalallala, aaaahhhhhhhhhhhh, here I am relaxing after a long bubble bath, lazing in the old battle axes satin and lace, feeling so good about myself. Nobody here to bother me with facts and details…. oh dear, oh my, except that sore on my psyche, POPIN-IN. Damn it, I was just feeling so wonderful thinking about Kilmeade giving me what I really need after doing such a fine job protecting him from those crass bullies and POPIN-IN had to pop up and ruin it. Well I’m just not going to fall for it again, I won’t be posting any more. It’s become clear that most of you are simply too stupid to understand even the simplest of points. This time I really really REALLY mean it. Popin-in, I want you to forget about all the bullshit that’s been posted here. Erase it from memory, and wipe the slate clean.
Hmm, so now you’ve taken to impersonation in an attempt to degrade me? Wow, you really ARE out of arguments, aren’t you? It’s too bad you couldn’t even justify your double standards before resorting to such methods, I was really looking forward to seeing you fail at that too.
It’s too bad that the one guy you’re trying to impress, Mike Stark, is also the only one that has access to the comments database, and can see you being an imposter just by looking at the registered email address. But I guess you just forgot about that, huh?
Oracle, Now you really have gone off the deep end ~ or should I call you Syble? One personality doesn’t know what the other is doing. Poor thing, I feel for you man. I know you hurt from being denied your true love, Kilmeade, then rejected by Alex and god knows how many others have run from you. Take heart, I’m sure there is a cozy home near you, for you to take a long, well needed rest. Just ignore the men with white uniforms and nurses, like you do the facts, and you can feel right at home. Just print out this manifesto and bring it over, they will admit you immediatly, no questions asked.
So, you’re denying that you impersonated me, despite the obvious connections with your writing style and poor grammar? And you’re also STILL ignoring the quotes I’ve pointed out to prove you have a HUGE double standard? You sad, lonely little man.
By the, have you ever considered the possibility that your “office buddies” are only agreeing with you beccause they know how violent and aggressive you become, should someone dare to have the call to challenge your irrational, nutbag conspiracy theories, as demonstrated in these very comments? Wait, scrap that; it’s more of an “almost certain probability” than it is a “possibility”.
And maybe, just maybe, your only “friend”, Alex, ran away like a poncy little girl because he, like you, wa unable to answer for the irrational beliefs I pointed out? But he just chose to handle defeat more gracefully by fleeing, than you do, by fighting to the bitter, irrational end with post after post of insults, irrelevent accusations, and baseless sexual innuendo (come out of the closet, popin-in!).
– wa(s) unable to answer for the irrational beliefs I pointed out?
As Paul Campos said leading up to the Iraqi war “Treating an argument as if it deserves to be taken seriously does not make it so.”
It must be awful always being on the wrong side of right. Poor, poor Oracle, you aren’t only a twit, unfortunately, you haven’t got a creative bone in your body. What I’m trying to tell you is you have gotten really quite boring. Dull. I have another fish on the hook who doesn’t try and copy my spice, much more entertaining than you. So off I go to fry another fish, leaving you to wallow alone ~ which I’m sure you are used to. I will leave you with some advice so that you can blather more effectively:
1.)Go to the library and get some books on how to become a comedianne. Your timeing is all off and your jokes fall flat.
2.) Get a book while your there on how to debate. Learn when you have been strung up like a seal with your guts on the side walk and admit failure. Never say die is not a winning strategy ~ just ask George W. Bush.
3.)Finally, go to these web sites and educate yourself. If you must comment on their threads, beware, there are sharks in these waters who will not hesitate to slice you into any number of pieces. Make sure you do 1 and 2 before you set foot in the pool or the pain will be excrutiating. You can respond but I will not be here, for you have been junked ~ sorry, but you should never bother to bring a knife to a gun fight. Best of luck.
http://operationyellowelephant.blogspot.com/
http://patriotboy.blogspot.com/
http://www.thismodernworld.com/
Now these are my heroes, I am a woman, and you are a fool.
TA TA bonehead
Your parents must be so proud.
“[freder421]I am a vet of the US Army”
“[me]Yes, I have served in the army, and in Iraq, for a coalition country.”
“[popin-in]BTW, you know this guy Oracle never served because he never stated troop, rank, VVA#, nada.”
No bias there, huh? Oh that’s right, it’s perfectly acceptable to challenge the validity of one’s arguments if they’re throwing out point after point that proves how wrong and idiotic your view is. But if some random idiot comes along, says he’s a veteran and that he hates Kilmeade, then crawls back into the hole he came from, well HOLY SHIT WE BETTER CARVE IT IN STONE AND FOLLOW THOU’S COMMANDMENTS!
Here’s the one that really made me laugh though:
“[popin-in]Besides your piss pour spelling (defense, supremacist),”
Not only did you spell your “you can’t spell” insult on me POORly, but you accused me of misspelling a word that wasn’t even wrong! What a fucking riot! But oh, that’s right, I forgot the golden rule; as long as you hate Kilmeade for not being in the army, you can say whatever the fuck you like, however the fuck you want to say it, and spell any damn you want to! And then, that was it. Nothing. You didn’t even try to debate the point. You just nit-picked on one stupid, irrelevent detail (like the spelling), and ignored the actual argument. It wasn’t a one-off, either; pretty much all your posts were like that. And then you have the nerve to try and tell ME how to debate properly! Are you functionally retarded, or what?
Please. Your bias in this debate (which was already won by yours truly long, long ago) is as obvious as your bias with the whole chickenhawk “WE can force our opinions on who we like, but YOU can’t” deal.
But you know what, you’re absolutely right about one thing:
“As Paul Campos said leading up to the Iraqi war “Treating an argument as if it deserves to be taken seriously does not make it so.””
I really should have never taken your chickenhawk “argument” so seriously. Here I was, thinking that you all actually believe in it, when it’s nothing more than a convenient insult for people who are doing a better job of presenting their real argument than you are.
Hey, I just thought of something: You know how I said I was a soldier? You know what would be really funny? If I was a soldier for Iraq. That would be a God-damn laugh riot, that would. It’s so funny if I can destroy half your “argument” by saying I’m a soldier, and finish off the rest by simply saying I’m an Iraqi soldier. Now THAT would be comedy. Of course, the way I’m suggesting it, I probably am not an Iraqi soldier (or AM I?) - but man, it just goes to show you how utterly stupid your opinions are, if you base them around the inividual that just happens to be pointing out how stupid you are at that point in time, rather than any actual logic or rationality, like us normal people do.
Adiós, mis amigos locos.