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.
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 be