IF you are not a prison guard at Gitmo...

...then you have NO RIGHT to speak about Gitmo prision conditions.

Put that in your pipe and smoke it, chickencritics.

What am I, that I served during Panama & GW1, but sat out GW2, even though I supported GW2? If you still think I'm a chickenhawk, then come down to 13th & L NW sometimes and we'll jawbone about it.

Unless you are the President...

...you can't speak about the President.

Unless you are a Republican...

...you can't talk about Republicans.

Unless you are a women...

...you can't talk about any women.

Unless you are American...

...you can talk about the American government.

The left is circle jerking to their formal push for this stance. It's called Operation Yellow Elephant.

"We support the war, so we should be fighting it."

Put up or shut up, it seems. But no debating ideas.

This ought to be interesting.

/sarcasm

Or we'll just hear the WMD thing over and over again, if anything.

So how does the left reconcile this with their views on the war in Afghanistan?

The left constantly talks about how they were for the war against Afghanistan, but are not for the war in Iraq. I'm sure they were all first in line at the recruitment centers the day we started fighting in Afghanistan, right?

Exactly why this is more bullsh*t.

I've always thought the chickenhawk argument is stupid, and have said so here a few times. However, if the current trend in recruitment continues, it will get more difficult to continue in Iraq at current levels, where as you note there is no exit strategy, only a victory strategy (which is, I assume, tiring the terrorists out or something). How long until victory, and how many soldiers will be needed, and where will they come from? I don't know the answers to those questions, though I wouldn't say the solution is for everyone who supports the war to enlist, nor that if you support the war and don't enlist you're a hypocrit (I supported Afghanistan and didn't enlist, etc).

Anyone have any guesses as to how long we'll need to be in Iraq, how many troops will be needed, and where these new recruits are to come from?

Essentially the Left is arguing against civilian, democratic control of the military with the "chickenhawk" argument.

Not surprised, given their support for the Red Army and its atrocities in the 20th century.

In and effort to boost falling recruitment numbers, tomorrow night during his speech at Ft. Bragg NC President Bush will personally ask that those young patriotic Americans who support him and this effort to fight terrorism and bring democracy around the world go to the recruitment offices and enlist for the new shorter 15 month tours of duty.

In anticipation of the large turn out, recruiting offices will be double manned to handle the crowds.

" where these new recruits are to come from?"

The New Iraqi Army.

What the anti-war types are doing here is the same thing they do with other policy positions: they attempt to shame the opposition, to tear away at the opposition's moral foundation to make their arguments. A long time ago, the left learned that if they are successful enough in attacking the messenger, then they don't have to worry about taking on the merits of the argument.

So try to argue an anti-affirmative action position without getting called racist. Try to argue a pro-tax cut position without getting called selfish. Try to argue against Elliot Spitzer without getting called an apologist for big business. And that is just what the white guys get called. Heaven forbid a black or a woman takes on a conservative position; they'll be called Uncle Toms or worse by liberals.

The left also learned that the right falls for this over and over again. We do this by allowing the left to frame the debate (such as Jay outlined above). Sometimes, fearful of being called names, we fail to even step up to the plate, the rationale being that tis better to abandon an argument than it is to deal with being called a racist, a sexist, selfish, and now, a chickenhawk.

But since there are some conservatives who are willing to risk being called racist or whatever, the liberals have decided to up the ante. No longer is a generic insult sufficient. From now on, we're Hitlers, we're Stalins, we're Pol Pots.

Leftist, Day 1: "Join the military and you are a babykiller, a nazi. The war is evil, so anyone who fights is doing evil! You fascists can recruit at high schools or collages!"

Leftist Day 2: "See how recruitment is down! It's all Bush's fault!! He lost the war!"

Wash, rinse, repeat.

correction to the dialog:

"You fascists can'T recruit at high schools or collages!"

How about "don't feed the trolls". A simple yet highly effective course of action.

By that argument, anyone who enjoys the protections fothe US Army is a chickenhawk if they don't enlist. Atrios and his ilk enjoyed the protection of the US Army from the USSR, and continue to enjoy freedom from China or other enemies. At no cost to themselves! How dare they! Hypocrites!

They don't join up for the police and fire departments but are still willing to put them at risk when their joint falls down between the sofa as they doze off.

Are they suggesting that only veterans are able to vote for or against military actions? If so, should we only allow veterans to run for election?

Should only doctors be able to vote for/discuss medical issues? Businessmen voting on business issues? Should only those who work and pay taxes get to vote on where their tax money goes?

Their argument is immaterial, and designed solely to sidestep the issue in order to attack the messenger instead.

It's absolutely a dodge, and not something the libs would really care to see taken to its logical conclusion. If you agree that only those who've experienced war can argue in favor of it, then doesn't that imply that only veterans can become President? After all, any President may have to take us to war someday, and hence may need to argue in its favor.

Sometimes I wonder why I even bother blogging--someone else always says it better.

Well put Jay Tea.

I'll say it for you, Jay, and I did fight this one, and the one in Kosovo, and the one in Bosnia, and the first one in Iraq, oh, and a little of that long, dull one against the Soviets, too.

This war is worth it. And I'll be around to fight the next one, too.

'nuff said.

I haven't yet heard anyone on the right say that those against the war don't have the right to speak out until they join the terrorists and lop off a few heads. That's one of the main differences between the left and the right, the left is based on a dishonest ideology. I think we should ask them a few questions along the same lines, like ,"How can you support higher taxes for the rich since you lack the ambition or ability to get rich yourself and pay almost no taxes to begin with?" and "How can you support abortion on demand when you haven't been aborted yourself?" Either question makes as much sense as their "chickenhawk" question.

"I haven't yet heard anyone on the right say that those against the war don't have the right to speak out until they join the terrorists and lop off a few heads."

I'll say it. If they're so opposed to the war, why aren't they signing up to be human shields for the enemy? If they're so opposed to American interests, why aren't they strapping bombs to their chests?

The answers should be obvious.

One of the favorite ploys of manipulators is to turn the argument, ANY argument, into somehow being about YOU, such that you'll go from debating a point to defending yourself against what can be a non-stop flood of attacks, which are often inreasingly personal and outrageous in nature.

Call a spade a spade; if someone pulls this tactic, call them a manipulator outright... and add that if their only possible response to you is to attack you, they've obviously conceded the debate, as they clearly can't refute your actual arguments. :-)

By extension, the argument logically implies that the only people who should be able to have input about whether or not the country should go to war are people who are/have been in the military.

More people in the military and veterans support the war than don't. So I guess the question of whether or not we should have gone to war is answered.

Actually, though, what they are mean is that you're only "allowed" to be for the war if you've been in the military. (If you're in the military, then you're a baby-killer and your opinion doesn't count anyway.) It's perfectly OK to be against the war if you haven't been in the military. This is like how men can't be pro-life, but it's perfectly OK and wonderful for them to be pro-choice.

Apparently you're only "allowed" to have conservative opinions so long as you meet certain requirements invented on the fly by people on the opposing side.

Ask them if they want to become a suicide bomber.

OC Church

We all watched as those brave "human shields" of the left ran for cover as soon as they knew they would forfeit their lives once the US started bombing in Iraq. The only time they wanted to be human shields was at locations they knew the US would NOT bomb.

Here's a quote from some moonbat named Gillard says on his blog (http://stevegilliard.blogspot.com/2005/06/honest-conversation.html) :

If you will not serve in Iraq, and no one you know will serve, stop expecting someone else to do what you will not.
Ok, you lefties put your money where your mouths are, no, not there, there's no telling where that mouth has been, I mean you should back up what you say. If you aren't willing to support yourself and do things like pay for your own way stop asking others to do it for you. Apply yourself, get a job and rake in some serious cash, work like a dog and insist that it's the money you earned that goes to support those unwilling to support themselves. And don't even think about tax shelters. Give it a try. See how it feels to practice what you preach.

The majority of the world knew that Iraq was going to be FUBAR before the war even started. The Pandora's box was about to be opened. Protests around the world, public opinion polls couldn't sway Bush.

Was it not easy to see that American soldiers would be sitting ducks in a region that was openly hostile to them? Was it not easy to see how provocative these actions were, the first non arab invader of an arab country in nearly 100 years, thereby throwing thousands of young men into the arms of AlQaeda, their greatest recruiting tool?

Was it not easy to see that American supply lines would be so long as to make them easy to interrupt and very expensive?

Was it not easy to see that Saddam as a secular Muslim and OBL as a fundamentalist weren't even on talking terms, never mind bosom buddies? Saddam had NOTHING to do with 9/11. Go after terrorists, not alleged supplier. Plenty more suppliers out there. Go after the guys who perpetrated the crime. Was that not easy to see?

Was it not easy to see that virtually no army in history has ever invaded a country and popped backed out again? Was it not easy to see that your grandchildren could be talking about an Iraqi exit plan?

Was it not easy to see that all this sabre rattling would help radical fundamentalists get elected in neighboring countries?

Was it not easy to see that America attacking Iraq would only give developing countries the idea that they needed nuclear weapons to prevent them from being invaded?
It was easy to see and that is why the vast majority of the world's population, not just the 'left' in this country are so pissed.

I don't agree with all this chickenhawk talk, it solves nothing. But it seems to be coming from railing against a policy that was so f@#king stupid.

Anyone have any guesses as to how long we'll need to be in Iraq, how many troops will be needed, and where these new recruits are to come from?

Yes, all kinds of people have guesses. Senator Kennedy thinks it's a quagmire and we will never get out of Iraq. Many others believe Rumsfeld when he states that we'll taper off our involvement after the first elections following the adoption of a constitution, if the circumstances permit it.

In any case, it's ridiculous to pin your support on this war (or any other war) on these types of questions. It's like asking a fire chief when the blaze is going to be out and how many firefighters it's going to take to put it out. At best the chief's answer is going to be a guess. Are you then going to tell him to not fight the fire if he can't answer you with certainties?

This is yet another diversionary tactic and demonstrates an intellectual vacuity. Either is a war is justified or it is not on moral grounds. Logistics has no play in this argument.

I usually end this sort of confrontation by suggesting that we take things one step further. That only combat active duty and combat veterans be permitted to decide such matters as who the commander in chief will be. ONly those who have seen and experienced combat firsthand should decide matters involving national defense.

What do you recommend that other 'chickenhawks' answer, if they do not have your health record?
There are plenty of able-bodied people who support the war, but do not want to go to war, because it is personally inconvenient: it requires sacrifice and disruption of individual life goals and family life.

You seem to be saying "necessary" = "least worst option". That's an odd definition of necessary. Am I must be reading you wrong.

How can B give any reasons when A just says: "Because of A, B, C, D, and E". Technically, the reasons of A have not been spelled out in your dialogue either. Seeing as you constructed the dialogue, it is surprising that your constructed character B did not give any reasons for why the war was wrong (do you doubt he could supply them, as in his or her views about this?). What is your rationale(s) for the war? (I don't usually read this site.) If it is democracy promotion, is that "necessary"?

Curious, I thought I spelled it out -- the answer I recommend is "it's not about me, but the issues, you asshole." That not only provides a satisfying smackback on the personal attack, but also redirects the debate back to the issue and away from individuals.

As for my reasons, go to the links in the next-to-last paragraph of my posting.

J.

The whole chickenhawk argument is weak...I agree with you Jay Tea.

The U.S. military has a total manpower of about 68 million people (that number comes from the CIA world fact book). The total US population is about 295 million, which means that according to the chickenhawk proponents about 227 million Americans have no say in military matters, and have no right to support the war. that makes no sense to me.

As for the war Jay Tea...Well I wouldnt ever say that getting rid of Hussein was a bad idea. The guy was a murderer, and was a problematic presence in a very important political and economic region.

I still do not like the way that GW and others went about things, by basically scaring the shit out of the American people and hyping up the war beyond what was necessary. I understand the need to get public opinion behind such a massive effort, but personally I wasnt very impressed with what we were being fed at that time to encourage support.

But then, it wouldnt look too pretty, or seem to heroic to put it bluntly...mainly that the Middle East is an extremely valuable region, and that democracy and stability there could greatly benefit the United States in the future. Pragmatics.

Hussein was a punk, a thug, and a brutal dictator. It's not like he's the only one of those around these days. But he did cross the line with the United States, and we all knew he would get it someday.

I do get tired of people who claim that the Iraq War is some kind of humanitarian mission. In my opinion that wasnt the main goal by any stretch of the imagination. It wasnt some altruistic endeavor. We certainly had alot to gain from going in there. I'm not trying to lay judgement...I'm just saying that I find it dishonest to promulgate the whole thing as something that its not. The war in Iraq is not about freeing Iraqi people.

I expect that Jay will respond to Gordon’s questions appropriately.

But as far as the chicken hawk thing goes, I like to respond by offering a similar question in return. For example, I might ask:

“Do you support universal access to healthcare for all?”

If so, then I follow up with:

“Have you volunteered to be a no-cost medical doctor, or nurse, or nurse’s assistant? Or maybe a crisis counselor, or dental assistant, or vision tester, etc. Surely, there is somewhere in the health care environment where you can contribute. Maybe you’re better with computers. Have you offered your time to help set up a data base at the free clinic? Maybe you don’t have the time or special skills to contribute. Are you at least providing monetary support?”