Yellow Elephant Anthony Mantova: It's hillbilly, intellectually vacant and morally repugnant that those who call for war must serve
Yellow Elephant Anthony Mantova, National Field Director of the Leadership Institute, says that it's "hillbilly, intellectually vacant and morally repugnant that those who call for war must serve."
His hometown paper, the Eureka [CA] Reporter, published his columns supporting the Global War on Terrorism, and invading Iran, as recently as last year.
To its credit, the Eureka Reporter just published real American (and former U.S. Army paratrooper) Rob Ash's column Asking The Question: Is Mantova willing to serve in the wars he supports? Money quotes:
Why doesn’t he sign up?
Mantova gave me unconvincing answers. He speculated how his enlistment might undermine civilian control of the military.
He compared himself favorably to the ancient Roman politician Cato the Elder, Winston Churchill and Socrates. Clearly, Mantova has a very high opinion of his intellectual abilities.
Finally, Mantova demeaned all service members and veterans with his “hillbilly, intellectually vacant and morally-repugnant” comments and dismissed the very notion of military service. He treated a deadly serious question as if it were a joke.
You can bet Mantova will continue to “stay the course” — the one farthest away from the recruitment office.
He’s much safer cheering on the war from his cushy job at the nonprofit foundation and polishing his resume than he would be fighting those nasty terrorists.
It's time for all real Americans to encourage Anthony Mantova to Be A Man! Enlist! Click here. Don't just comment, click here, too. Thanks!
Thanks also to Steve Gilliard. And Daily Kos. And Conservative Underground. And Respectfully Republican. And All Too Common Dissent.
Labels: Anthony Mantova
posted by Karl @ 8/27/2006 12:37:00 PM
129 comments
129 Comments:
Pretty typical repug. Warmongering candyass, coward.
just curious what a genius like this is doing in Eureka, CA? certainly not notorious for brilliant foreign policymaking--if this clown's got it all figured out, why is he in bum#!$@^ Egypt versus working in Washington or in an Embassy somewhere...oh wait, I forgot, he's hiding!
He's not In Eureka California anymore He's off at the Rove school in Arlington VA learning dirty campaign tricks.
I hope the reporter prints his Reply soon. that should be amusing.
Cato the Elder, Churchill, and Socrates all served in the military of their respective states. Why won't Mantova?
Pussy!
I just sent him an email asking him to get his candy-ass over to the war or shut up about it.
He never will. Lilly-livered chicken shit!
I'm 42 and on yet-another hitch after having had hot duty in the "cold" war and the 90s. I serve my country even though my commander in chief is a jackass because those of us who love the US do so for its own sake.
Anthony Mantova can kiss my balls.
Sheesh, another candy-ass pansy who won't put his cock where his mouth is and sign up.
Done, I served, I am not sure why this coward won't.
I signed the dotted line, I served, and now I am disabled... I had one more thing I could have given, and that was my life...
Bless those that have fallen, and shame on this coward for helping to send them to their deaths...
COWARD!
Cato the Elder served in the military, so did Churchill. Socrates? Well, not that I'm aware of; he was a philospher, which Mantova clearly is not. He could even the score by taking some hemlock, though. :evilgrin:
In the ancient era, you could hardly be called a leader of anything, even so small as a tribe or clan, without the will to fight to protect it. Kings would personally lead troops into battle, or they could hardly BE Kings. Those who have personally known the horror and sacrifice of war are those most effective at avoiding war, yet also most effective in preparing for it if inevitable, and exhorting others to fight in the spirit of shared sacrifice. Churchill would disdain this man; Patton would slap him.
Mantova (whom I'd never even heard of before today) hasn't a thimble's worth of character, courage, or wisdom compared to any of these men. All he's got is an overarching sense of self, a disdain of the common people, and a yellow streak that runs both down and across his back. He's a coward, a bully, and an egoist.
Maybe it's because he's a "hatriot". Maybe it's because of the "don't ask, don't tell" policy. Maybe he's getting a new job with Talon News.
"Maybe it's because he's a "hatriot". Maybe it's because of the "don't ask, don't tell" policy. Maybe he's getting a new job with Talon News."
-----------------------------------
Sorry, I don't usually post anonymously, but had to do so here. Do you like that word "hatriot"? That's what I've been using to describe the ReichWingers who obviously despise anyone who criticizes current policies. The folks over at IceStationTango.blogspot.com thought it was appropriate.
Maybe it doesn't work, but then I've never been a cunning linguist.
Russ Weiss, Missouri
Likens himself to Socrates - eh? In the Symposium, Alcibiades recounts:
...I will also tell, if you please-and indeed I am bound to tell of his courage in battle; for who but he saved my life? Now this was the engagement in which I received the prize of valour: for I was wounded and he would not leave me, but he rescued me and my arms; and he ought to have received the prize of valour which the generals wanted to confer on me partly on account of my rank, and I told them so, (this, again Socrates will not impeach or deny), but he was more eager than the generals that I and not he should have the prize.
There was another occasion on which his behaviour was very remarkable-in the flight of the army after the battle of Delium, where he served among the heavy-armed-I had a better opportunity of seeing him than at Potidaea, for I was myself on horseback, and therefore comparatively out of danger. He and Laches were retreating, for the troops were in flight, and I met them and told them not to be discouraged, and promised to remain with them; and there you might see him, Aristophanes, as you describe, just as he is in the streets of Athens, stalking like a and rolling his eyes, calmly contemplating enemies as well as friends, and making very intelligible to anybody, even from a distance, that whoever attacked him would be likely to meet with a stout resistance; and in this way he and his companion escaped-for this is the sort of man who is never touched in war; those only are pursued who are running away headlong.
I particularly observed how superior he was to Laches in presence of mind. Many are the marvels which I might narrate in praise of Socrates; most of his ways might perhaps be paralleled in another man, but his absolute unlikeness to any human being that is or ever has been is perfectly astonishing.
Seriously, nobody expects these guys to sign up, anymore than I'd encourage my son enlist. But most grown-ups understand a syllogism about responsibility that goes:
(a) If I sincerely believe that some particular action must be taken; and
(b) I'm qualified to do it (or as qualified as anyone is); and
(c) It's not getting done otherwise,
(d) Then I have to do it.
Either this pisher, and his colleagues are either so delusional that they don't see that (c) isn't happening (enlistments are inadequate to sustain whatever the hell we're supposed to be accompishing in Iraq), or they think (d)--doing what needs doing--is for suckers.
This chickenhawk thing isn't about them not having any combat experience. It's about them not having any character.
Molly, NYC
What's all the fuss, just take a look at his dumb looking bitch photo. (nice hair dork)
He's obviously a pussy.
This guy would cry in a boyscout troop much less the marines.
Actually, this fellow is fairly representative of most of those left supporting our little experiment in spreading democracy and freedom in southwest Asia. White, 25-45, questionable education(choosing to legitimate your belief in 'non-service'by comparing one's self to Cato/Churchill/Socrates is inane at best. Why not choose someone like Rudolf Hess instead, or maybe Joseph Goebbels would be more accurate.)and just mad at the world about something you can't really intelligently communicate to anyone with the IQ of a large shrub.This guy is truly symbolic of a group who has gloriously marched us into this bloody morass without ever having served in the military and like Anthony Mantova, completely oblivious to the lessons of history(see Vietnam, Beirut, Soviet occupation of Afganistan, etc.)These guys would be truly comical if they weren't so scary.
Wow. I've never seen somebody make an entire blog out of a single laughable premise.
Do you think that we should fight rape? You do? Are you a policeman? You're not? Why not? Are you a yellowbelly or something? How dare you advocate that we enforce the law when you're not willing to put your own body on the line?
Do you think that when a fire starts, we should let it burn and raze anything it engulfs to the ground? You don't? You must be a fireman then. What? You're not? Coward! What possible right do you have to say that maybe fighting fires is a good idea, when you're not even a fireman?
You're in favor of legal abortion, I imagine. So you're an abortion provider, naturally. Huh? You aren't? WTF, man? What kind of a chicken are you?
The whole "chickenhawk" premise is not only inane, it's repugnant. One of the cornerstones of American democracy is civilian control of the military. That means, very specifically, that you don't have to be in the military to have a valid opinion on its use. For you to insinuate that only military men may opine (at least that only military men can have an opinion you disagree with) is to advocate a position that I can't believe you really accept.
Holy bad analogies, Sockpuppetman!
You don't need to be a policeman to fight rape. Nor a fireman to stop a fire.
I can't see how it is less "repugnant" to be willing to send others to war if you aren't willing yourself.
"You don't need to be a policeman to fight rape. Nor a fireman to stop a fire."
And you don't need to be a soldier to defend your country. How fun!
Let's see... you do need to be a policeman to arrest a rapist. Do you think rapists should be arrested? Well then, you must be a policeman! Hooray! You do need to be a fireman to use hook and ladder truck to fight a fire. Do you think that hook and ladder trucks should be used to fight fires? The fire department is always looking for a few good men!
The government spends money and sends men to fight rapists... and in some cases die in the fight. The government spends money and sends men to fight fires... and in some cases die in the fight. One can be approving of both of these expenditures of blood and treasure without needing to personally take part in them.
"I can't see how it is less 'repugnant' to be willing to send others to war if you aren't willing yourself."
It's simply a non sequitur.
Wow. I've never seen somebody make an entire blog out of a single laughable premise.
You must not read a lot of blogs, then.
Do you think that we should fight rape? You do? Are you a policeman? You're not? Why not? Are you a yellowbelly or something? How dare you advocate that we enforce the law when you're not willing to put your own body on the line?
There currently isn't a shortage of people willing to be a policeman, and frankly the enforcement of laws against rape usually involve courtroom prosecution, not fighting rapists in the street. A more apt comparison would be "are you willing to be an attractive, waifish young victim for a day?" Your first attempt at analogy sucks shit.
Do you think that when a fire starts, we should let it burn and raze anything it engulfs to the ground? You don't? You must be a fireman then. What? You're not? Coward! What possible right do you have to say that maybe fighting fires is a good idea, when you're not even a fireman?
A fire is a random event and again to my knowledge there isn't a shortage of firemen anywhere in the nation. There also isn't a looming national crisis of fires that is in danger of failing because not enough firefighters are being recruited, and again your analogy sucks shit.
You're in favor of legal abortion, I imagine. So you're an abortion provider, naturally. Huh? You aren't? WTF, man? What kind of a chicken are you?
This is even stupider than the last one by a country mile. Being in favor of the right to abort or not doesn't engender someone to go out and get a medical education in order to learn how to correclty provide an abortion, but I can certainly see amateurs with coathangers encouraging the banning of abortions in order to bring more business to themselves. At any rate this one is so stupid as to defy description. I don't think it requires me to work very hard to defeat it, as it pretty much chokes itself to death with stupidity.
Finally your most disingenius quote, and the one I'm going to tape to a heavy boot and jam in your pissy-ass face:
One of the cornerstones of American democracy is civilian control of the military. That means, very specifically, that you don't have to be in the military to have a valid opinion on its use.
Yes. Absolutely. It also means that if you oppose the inappropriate, unwise, or ill-considered use of self-same military you shouldn't have to endure being called a traitor. And that's the problem. The selfsame smug sons of bitches who are telling everyone else they are too high and mighty to serve are also calling people who oppose the war "traitors" and "saddam lovers" and "terrorist sympathizers." And we really feel that if you are that vocal about a problem, and you're capable of contributing to its solution, and furthermore there is a need for your contribution, you ought to put your money where your punk-ass mouth is, or SHUT UP. There is NO SHORTAGE of loudmouth warmongers.
Just ignore Voice of Reason. He's your typical chickenhawk loser who has no way to defend himself except with that completely bogus "I oppose fires but that doesn't mean I have to join the fire department" argument.
They know they've been exposed as hypocrites, so they try to turn the argument around and make it seem as if their right to speak is being taken away by us mean anti-war types.
You can talk all you want about the war, chickenhawks, but you'll never convince anybody that you're anything other than a cowardly hypocrite who doesn't know the meaning of patriotism.
You must not read a lot of blogs, then.
Oh, I read quite a few, actually. It's rare that somebody spins an entire blog out of a single logical fallacy.
There currently isn't a shortage of people willing to be a policeman
Are you kidding me? The police department in my area is always recruiting. So is the military... and it's for the most part meeting its goals. Only a fraction of active-duty servicemen is in Iraq. Your whole "chickenhawk" argument is premised on there being a shortage of soldiers?
and frankly the enforcement of laws against rape usually involve courtroom prosecution, not fighting rapists in the street.
And the prosecution of wars involves generals in planning rooms as well as boots on the ground. What's your point?
A more apt comparison would be "are you willing to be an attractive, waifish young victim for a day?" Your first attempt at analogy sucks shit.
Uh, no, that's the crappiest analogy I've heard all week. Remember, you're demanding that supporters of the war join the military. You're analogizing our soldiers to attractive, waifish young victims? Sorry, I think analogizing them as cops or firemen fits a lot better. And so would you, if you were able to cool down, stop frothing, and think rationally. So would you, if you were able to make logical arguments rather than try to shut your opponents up.
A fire is a random event
Not necessarily... and in any case, it's statistically certain that fires will occur and equally statistically certain that firemen will risk and lose their lives fighting them.
There also isn't a looming national crisis of fires that is in danger of failing because not enough firefighters are being recruited, and again your analogy sucks shit.
You think the military is in danger of failing because of a lack of recruits? Can I have your source for this claim, please? Say, are people who are unqualified for military service exempt from your argument?
Yes. Absolutely. It also means that if you oppose the inappropriate, unwise, or ill-considered use of self-same military...
Way to beg the question there, champ! Everybody opposes the inappropriate, unwise, or ill-considered use of the military. But you're trying to shut down debate on whether a given use of the military is any of those things by demanding that your opponents "shut up" unless they serve.
you shouldn't have to endure being called a traitor.
No, you shouldn't. Those who proclaim that every civilian who opposes the use of the military is a traitor are every bit as wrong as those who proclaim that every civilian who supports the use of the military is a chickenhawk.
The selfsame smug sons of bitches who are telling everyone else they are too high and mighty to serve are also calling people who oppose the war "traitors" and "saddam lovers" and "terrorist sympathizers."
Tell you what, friend. I haven't pawed through all of the posts here, but I'll bet you ten bucks that if I were to invest the time to do so, I'd find an example of what you call a "chickenhawk" who hasn't called war opponents "traitors", "saddam (sic) lovers", or "terrorist sympathizers." Do we have a wager?
Perhaps you need to define your terms. Is a "chickenhawk" any civilian who supports the war? Or a civilian who supports the war and calls all opponents "traitors"? What if he only calls some opponents traitors, is that okay?
And we really feel that if you are that vocal about a problem, and you're capable of contributing to its solution, and furthermore there is a need for your contribution, you ought to put your money where your punk-ass mouth is, or SHUT UP.
Again, here we have the crux of your "argument". You need not bother answering your opponents' arguments, because according to you, your opponents have no right to an opinion. Your opponents are duty-bound not to defend their position, not to make their own arguments, and especially not to counter your own feeble arguments, but may only SHUT UP.
I bet you consider yourself an enthusiastic defender of free speech, too. Am I right?
Just ignore Voice of Reason.
Yes, because it's a sure bet that you can't refute me...
He's your typical chickenhawk loser
...except with ad hominem...
who has no way to defend himself except with that completely bogus "I oppose fires but that doesn't mean I have to join the fire department" argument.
...or with proof by assertion.
They know they've been exposed as hypocrites
I'm sorry, I thought you were talking about us, not yourselves. I mean, what would you call it if somebody believes it's valid to insist that war supporters join the military but not valid to insist that law enforcement supporters join the police, if not hypocrisy?
so they try to turn the argument around and make it seem as if their right to speak is being taken away by us mean anti-war types.
Let's see... how did that quote go? I want to make sure I get it exactly right here. Hmmm... I do believe it was "SHUT UP", was it not?
You can talk all you want about the war, chickenhawks, but you'll never convince anybody that you're anything other than a cowardly hypocrite
I know for a fact that I won't convince you. Your mind is closed. You are not open to any facts that challenge your preconceived worldview, and you personally explicitly advocate ignoring any evidence to the contrary. But perhaps others whose minds aren't so closed will read these words. And even if not, I enjoy occasionally arguing circles around my inferiors. It's a bit of a guilty pleasure, but I find that shooting fish in a barrel every now and then is harmless fun.
who doesn't know the meaning of patriotism.
Funny, I don't recall questioning anybody's patriotism. But now that you bring it up, I believe that debate is patriotic, and that there's something profoundly un-American about those who try to shut down their opponents with shrieking personal attacks.
Voice of reason:
My mind may be closed, but at least I won't have to hang my closed mind in shame when my grandchildren ask me, "Daddy, what did you do during the Iraq War?"
This guy should get his facts straight. I believe Churchill served in the Kitchener expedition in the Sudan. Hewas also in South Africa as a correspondent during the Boer War, wher he was caputured and later escaped.
Oh I forgot he is a republican he doesn't need to get his facts straight
I find that shooting fish in a barrel every now and then is harmless fun.
Sure, shooting fish in a barrel is a lot more fun and harmless than going down to your local recruiting office and joining up so you can shoot actual people.
The chickenhawk: Why should I enlist? I'm fighting the war on terror right here at home in front of my computer!
so they try to turn the argument around and make it seem as if their right to speak is being taken away by us mean anti-war types.
Let's see... how did that quote go? I want to make sure I get it exactly right here. Hmmm... I do believe it was "SHUT UP", was it not?
voice of reason, you know how foolish that makes you look when your posts on this blog are proof positive that no one is shutting you up, right? Do you suffer from a persecution complex or something?
My mind may be closed, but at least I won't have to hang my closed mind in shame when my grandchildren ask me, "Daddy, what did you do during the Iraq War?"
You know, I could make a very cruel jibe about your perversions if your grandchildren will call you "Daddy"... but I won't. What will you say? Something like this?
"Well, grandson, while we were removing a brutal dictator from power and bringing about the flourishing democracy that Iraq has today, I was out there shrieking that nobody had the right to support the war unless they were in the military!"
Sure, shooting fish in a barrel is a lot more fun and harmless than going down to your local recruiting office and joining up so you can shoot actual people.
Yep! And sitting here making snarky comments and silly fallacies is a lot easier than strapping on a badge and a blue uniform and going out to protect the law-abiding citizenry.
The chickenhawk: Why should I enlist? I'm fighting the war on terror right here at home in front of my computer!
I'm not fighting the war on terror. That's left to better men than I, men whom I honor and love, men who make me unexpressably proud to live in a nation that inspires such men to serve it. Men whose sacrifices I respect and mourn... rather than using their coffins as soapboxes and waving their bloody shrouds like banners.
voice of reason, you know how foolish that makes you look when your posts on this blog are proof positive that no one is shutting you up, right?
I didn't say you were succeeding in shutting me up. You're certainly trying to, though. You're not outright censoring me, I'll give you that... although I wouldn't be terribly surprised to find this more direct up-shutting imposed in the future. No, you're simply telling me to shut up, in those precise terms, and you're asserting that I have no right to my opinion because I'm a civilian. It is in that sense that you are attempting to shut me up... and, as a secondary benefit to you, relieving yourself of the necessity of engaging in any form of rational discourse, since your opponents have no standing in your eyes.
That's left to better men than I, men whom I honor and love
You know, I could make a very cruel jibe about your perversions about soldiers...but I won't.
You know, I could make a very cruel jibe about your perversions about soldiers...but I won't.
Oh please, go ahead. I love our soldiers, I cannot express how much I love them for their service and sacrifice. I don't see what perversity can be read into that... unless the only meaning of the verb "to love" that you know is "to have sex with", in which case, I pity you. But if somebody's grandfather is also his daddy... well, now, that is unambiguous.
Actually I believe this "Voice of Reason" Might be Mantova himself. Making a vain attept to defend his pathetic name
A lot of the stuff VOR says is exactly the same glib Bushwa Mantova laid on me to begin with.
These straussian Neo-cons They really are better than you --just ask them.
Voice must be one of those plantation overlords that expects the lower classes and slaves to stake their lives on his continued prosperity without having to put a nickel or a knuckle on the line themselves.
Well, gutless wonder, go out and try war and THEN tell us you advocate it. Maybe actually killing someone with an actual gun and not with your simpering mouth will appeal to you.
Buck-buck-buck... bruck-buck-buck.
PS: check it out if you want to see how deep dumb goes:
http://politicalities.typepad.com/
I would've copied you on this, Karl, but I don't have your email. Anyway, this was my letter to him:
I'm an American Soldier who just got back from serving in Iraq.
I'm also a bleeding heart liberal and a member of the Democratic Party.
How does it feel to know that a bleeding heart liberal Democrat has more balls than you?
I am curious as to your response. Please write me back and let me know how it feels.
If you disagree and actually think that you are stronger than I, feel free to come to Michigan so I can open a can of whoop-ass on you. We'll make it legal-ring, gloves, and all.
Bitch.
D.J.
Voice of Reason said...
I'm a little bitch.
Sorry, VOR, but with all your arguing, that's all my OIF/OEF veteran eyes could see in your posts.
Crybaby pansy ass. You don't even have the balls to defend what you believe. And you sure as hell aren't as brave as this liberal.
djtyg-
Karl's e-mail is operationyellowelephant [at] gmail [dot] com
Thanks for sharing your thoughts directly with a self-proclaimed future leader of our governing party.
I'm not sure Montoya could serve in the U.S. military. They DO still have that "don't ask, don't tell" thing, don't they? Just saying.
Dear Recurit Mantova,
Now that major combat operations are over maybe it’s safe enough for you pick up a gun and go fight the GWOT at the epicenter, Bagdad…no, I mean Ramadi.
See we don’t have enough soldiers to knock down Bagdad and Ramadi at the same time. Iraq is a big country and we need big people like you go spread democracy and Christianity over there.
George
USN 1971-1975
I'm new to this site. I am largely pacifist and believe that humans have brains not to create better fangs and claws, but to create solutions to problems without resort to violence. I also totally agree that advocates for war should be willing to fight. If a building is burning, and there aren't enough fire fighters, if you believe the fire should be put out, then you'd better grab a bucket. However, on both sides of the political aisle you will find personal habits that fall short of the rhetoric. Have we on the left who advocate greater welfare for the poor given away any appreciable percentage of our material wealth toward that endeavor? Do we environmentalists ride our bike to work? Do we advocates of peace sign up as human shields? My point is not that war-cheerleaders are somehow not morally repugnant. They are. But it's not because they don't serve. It's rather because they advocate violence. And those who carry out violence willingly are morally no better, and possibly worse. Nonetheless, it is ok to champion an ideal with which one inevitably cannot achieve. My ideal happens to be peace and love, and that love extends from bombed civilians to misguided rightwingers. They shouldn't be signing up to fight. Nobody should be.
Voice of reason: Didn't I tell you to shut up, bitch? I swear I told you to shut your punk-ass up. That's the problem with you motherfuckers. You never know when the conversation's over.
I sent the following email to Mr Montova:
My father joined the National Guard in 1936. He joined the US Army in 1943, spent several years in the Phillipines. He was at that time too old for front-line service, but he served in MacArthur's staff.
He did his part to serve and defend his country. Why don't you do yours?
He was a liberal. You have a liberal to thank for your comfortable life.
Your mockery of those who serve is an insult to my late father, a man who served his country.
You should be ashamed of yourself. But it's possible that you don't understand shame. If that's the case, then I feel sorry for you.
Actually I believe this "Voice of Reason" Might be Mantova himself. Making a vain attept to defend his pathetic name
Nope. I'm just me. In fact, I don't even know who you're talking about... I was linked here from Conservative Underground and don't know any of the regulars here. I just felt, as I said, in the mood for a bit of a turkey shoot.
Voice must be one of those plantation overlords that expects the lower classes and slaves to stake their lives on his continued prosperity without having to put a nickel or a knuckle on the line themselves.
Aw, you just go on making the same ol' invalid comparisons if it makes you feel comfortable. You just go right on ignoring the perfectly valid analogy to police and fire departments if you don't want your safe little bubble to be disturbed.
Well, gutless wonder, go out and try war and THEN tell us you advocate it.
So can I infer that you do not believe that we should have fire departments?
Maybe actually killing someone with an actual gun and not with your simpering mouth will appeal to you.
Maybe you should actually chase an armed, fleeing suspect on foot, then spend hours negotiating with him to get him to lower his weapon from the head of the terrified girl he's grabbed as a hostage. Maybe you should be grabbing your gear to answer the three-alarm fire at 3:00 AM and rush up the burning stairs to rescue the infant trapped at the top. Would that appeal to you?
Buck-buck-buck... bruck-buck-buck.
I know you are, but what am I?
PS: check it out if you want to see how deep dumb goes:
http://politicalities.typepad.com/
Ah, memories. My old blog... haven't updated it in over a year, it was fun while it lasted but I just didn't have the time. As it happens, if you check the archives you'll see that one of my very first posts was exploding your particular breed of fallacy.
Sorry, VOR, but with all your arguing, that's all my OIF/OEF veteran eyes could see in your posts.
Thank you very, very much for your service. Where were you stationed?
And you sure as hell aren't as brave as this liberal.
Cheerfully admitted... but then, I doubt you're as intelligent as this conservative.
Voice of reason: Didn't I tell you to shut up, bitch?
Yep, you certainly did. But you're not the boss of me.
Actually I believe this "Voice of Reason" Might be Mantova himself. Making a vain attept to defend his pathetic name
Another thing Mantova bragged about when we were having our conversations is how he was an admirer of Leo Strauss , which means he is a liar as well as a coward So any denials on VOR's part would be highly suspect and good reason to believe that the exact opposite is true.
Another thing Mantova bragged about when we were having our conversations is how he was an admirer of Leo Strauss , which means he is a liar as well as a coward So any denials on VOR's part would be highly suspect and good reason to believe that the exact opposite is true.
Wow, another example of the fine sterling logic I've grown to expect during my short stay here. Mantova is a liar, therefore I am a liar? Hey, I guess that applies equally well to you, too. You must be Mantova! Caught you, you sneakly little devil!
He's never actually expalined the logical fallacy Just some silly analogy about how you don't have to be a policeman to support law and order.
I suppose if Mantova ,er I mean VOR went to the beach and saw his best friend was drowning, he would kick back and do nothing until a professional lifeguard arrived
He's never actually expalined the logical fallacy
Oh, sorry, I thought it was obvious. There's actually a couple of them now, the most glaring being the non sequitur, which in case you're unaware is Latin for "it does not follow". Your argument, in essence, is: "You did not serve in the military, therefore your opinion regarding the war is false." The conclusion does not follow from the premise. You're asserting that it does, but providing no evidence for it.
And the whole thing falls under the broader classification of argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument against the person"). You're dismissing an entire category of arguments by attacking the people making them. An argument is either valid or it isn't, regardless of the person who makes it.
I suppose if Mantova
*shrug* I'm not this Mantova person. I have only the vaguest idea of who he is; again, I was linked to this blog from Conservative Underground and immediately hopped on the first comment thread I saw. I'm not sure what form of proof you'd accept, nor can I really bring myself to care. I suppose the site administrator could check my IP address.
er I mean VOR went to the beach and saw his best friend was drowning, he would kick back and do nothing until a professional lifeguard arrived
Another fine example of the non sequitur.
Say, just out of curiosity, here's a question for you folks who make the chickenhawk "argument". Suppose there were a person who had a medical condition precluding military service. Would that person be legitimately able to argue in favor of the war, or does his condition prevent him from holding certain political positions?
voice of reason-
Thank you for participating in this discussion. Of course, it would help if you focused on the specific issue at hand, but if flawed analogies are the best you can do, that's OK.
If our country were having difficulties recruiting qualified police and firemen, you might have a point. We're beyond that point in Iraq. So are the Iraqis.
Re your question in the last para (immediately above), please check out OYE 101 in the upper right corner.
Our exclusive focus is those eligible to serve who support the war but haven't yet considered volunteering. "A person who had a medical condition precluding military service," along with the Log Cabin Republicans, are off the hook with Operation Yellow Elephant.
Another way to get off our hook is to consider volunteering, and to share the results of those deliberations with the same audiences you've urged to support the war. We call this full disclosure of relevant personal conflicts of interest.
National Review's Jonah Goldberg had the guts to acknowledge that the reason his sorry ass is not in Iraq is, "because, well, my ass is sorry."
Isn't that easy?
Voice of Reason said...
"I pee my pants sometimes because I don't have the balls to reply to a war vet that has called me out on my cowardice."
Thank you for participating in this discussion.
You're welcome. Thank you for your civility, something I haven't seen a whole lot of here.
Of course, it would help if you focused on the specific issue at hand, but if flawed analogies are the best you can do, that's OK.
Care to explain how my analogies are flawed? The "specific issue" at hand is your argument that people who are able to serve and do not forfeit the right to an opinion. That does not follow, and the method I'm using to prove it is a reductio ad absurdum: if your argument were valid, none of us would have a right to have an opinion on the use of the police force or the fire department, either.
If our country were having difficulties recruiting qualified police and firemen, you might have a point. We're beyond that point in Iraq. So are the Iraqis.
Um, what? Just a quick check of my local police and fire departments' websites shows that both are seeking to recruit qualified people. In the State of Washington, there are over 120 police departments that are hiring, and those are only the oens who contracted with Publicsafetytesting.com to do their initial screenings.
What's your threshhold? What objective criteria are you using to declare that the military is so short of personnel that nobody can ethically advocate its use without serving, while the police are well-staffed enough that anybody can opine? If a police department in one town were desperately short of people, must everybody sign up in order to have the right to advocate using the police, or only the residents of that town?
Our exclusive focus is those eligible to serve who support the war but haven't yet considered volunteering.
I see. So all one needs to do is consider volunteering, and then one is no longer a chickenhawk? Somehow I doubt that this is a point of view that's widely shared among people who hurl the epithet "chickenhawk."
Heck, I don't meet your criteria for chickenhawkhood, and people have accused me in this very comment thread.
"I pee my pants sometimes because I don't have the balls to reply to a war vet that has called me out on my cowardice."
Sorry, who did I miss? I thought I'd replied to everybody who addressed me in this thread; if I've missed somebody please point it out and I'll get to it in due course.
I've changed my mind, Instead of I think VOR might actually be Patrick Bell instead
I just saw a picture of him .
Bell is much too fat and whiny to ever make it through basic training.
So, at least Bell has a legitimate excuse for not serving in the military
I've changed my mind, Instead of I think VOR might actually be Patrick Bell instead
Uh, nope. I have no idea who that is.
Bell is much too fat and whiny to ever make it through basic training.
Well then, according to karl he's not a chickenhawk. Do you agree?
Well if you enlisted and went off to basic training and then discovered that you were a too whiny and blubbery for military service,
At least you could say that you tried to do your part and that you were just not cut out for the service.
Chances are, I would cut you some slack as long as you didn't desert
VOR, you can insult my intelligence if you want (I passed the ASVAB, how about you)?
But the bottom line is that you're still a pussy ass conservative bitch. Nothing you say on this board is going to change that. No witty replies, no quoting someone in italics, nothing. You are a little bitch now and you will be after you reply.
Suck on that, chump.
The "specific issue" at hand is your argument that people who are able to serve and do not forfeit the right to an opinion.
It is not that those that do not serve forfeit their right to an opinion, it is that those that advocate war and refuse to/have not served are hypocrites and cowards.
"voice of reason" writes:
The whole "chickenhawk" premise is not only inane, it's repugnant. One of the cornerstones of American democracy is civilian control of the military.
Another cornerstone of American democracy is the willingness to fight for what you believe in.
Had you wondered, Voice of 'Reason', why it is that the civilians in control of the military, you know, consult with military people before making decisions (this admin and possibly the Johnson admin are notable exceptions)? Could it be perhaps that there is a realization that those that have served might, you know, have some special insights into such things?
The most ridiculous excuses that I have seen are akin to your examples here - police, etc. Apples and oranges. Policemen
are not generally the tools of the civilian leadership, to be used to implement poorly thought out, poorly planned, foreign policy decisions.
The military, on the other hand, is at the disposal of this civilian leadership. And it is very easy for the civilian leadership to see the military as numbers and pawns, have they not served.
Hence the ease with which right wing chickenhawks advocate war at the drop of a hat. They have never made the sacrifices that those that have served have.
It is not illogical to call you people on your hypocrisy. It is illogical to compare being being supportive of the local police or rooting for a sports team to advocating for war.
Illogical, stupid, and cowardly.
But the bottom line is that you're still a pussy ass conservative bitch. Nothing you say on this board is going to change that. No witty replies, no quoting someone in italics, nothing. You are a little bitch now and you will be after you reply. Suck on that, chump.
I know you are, but what am I? Ha ha! Neener neener neener! You're a big poopyhead! Boogers!
Sorry about that... I just figured I'd try to adjust my debating style to be more appropriate to the tactics you seem to favor. For some reason you think that tossing around kindergarten insults is a brilliant argument.
It is not that those that do not serve forfeit their right to an opinion, it is that those that advocate war and refuse to/have not served are hypocrites and cowards.
Please explain, using consistent arguments and without resorting to ad hominem, why those who advocate law enforcement and refuse to/have not joined the police force are not hypocrites and cowards. Good luck!
Had you wondered, Voice of 'Reason', why it is that the civilians in control of the military, you know, consult with military people before making decisions (this admin and possibly the Johnson admin are notable exceptions)? Could it be perhaps that there is a realization that those that have served might, you know, have some special insights into such things?
Of course... on tactical and strategic matters. The decision on whether to go to war in the first place, however, is left in the hands of civilians. And in any case, you're shredding your own position, since the men and women who are in the military (djtyg notwithstanding) overwhelmingly support the war.
The most ridiculous excuses that I have seen are akin to your examples here - police, etc. Apples and oranges. Policemen are not generally the tools of the civilian leadership, to be used to implement poorly thought out, poorly planned, foreign policy decisions.
And here we have yet another logical fallacy, petitio principii, better known as assuming the conclusion or begging the question. You believe that this particular war is poorly thought out and poorly planned... but the burden is on you to prove it. Of course any right-thinking person would oppose bad policy. Unfortunately for you, you can't just say "You're an idiot because you favor bad policy." You have to prove that the policy is bad.
The military, on the other hand, is at the disposal of this civilian leadership. And it is very easy for the civilian leadership to see the military as numbers and pawns, have they not served.
"Pawns?" Excuse me, did you say "pawns?" Which side in the debate over the war uses military coffins as props? Which side is ghoulishly keeping a body count, throwing a damned celebration whenever it reaches a round number? Which side insists on shrieking "quagmire", which side trumpets every setback and ignores every success, which side parrots the same tired hyperbole over and over again?
The police most certainly are at the disposal of the civilian leadership. Federal, state, and local legislatures dictate the police force's mission, equipment, compensation, and priorities. I fail to see any significant difference that enables a civilian to advocate sending the police to fight and die yet does not enable that same civilian to advocate sending the military to fight and die.
It is illogical to compare being being supportive of the local police or rooting for a sports team to advocating for war.
Yes, both of those things would be illogical, had I advocated either of them. But I haven't, so you're demonstrating yet another fallacy, the strawman. I never said anything about rooting for a sports team, so I'm not sure which sphincter you pulled that one out of. And I didn't compare favoring the war to being "supportive of the local police." The latter would be analogous to being "supportive of the military"... which many people are without supporting the war. No, I compared supporting the war with using the police to enforce the law. Both involve sending men to fight, sacrifice, and in too many cases die in order to achieve policy goals.
Illogical, stupid, and cowardly.
Neener neener neener! LOLZ. Boogers!
It is not that those that do not serve forfeit their right to an opinion, it is that those that advocate war and refuse to/have not served are hypocrites and cowards.
Please explain, using consistent arguments and without resorting to ad hominem, why those who advocate law enforcement and refuse to/have not joined the police force are not hypocrites and cowards. Good luck!
Speaking of illogical arguments…
I always get a kick out of pseudointellectuals that have apparently visited Wikipedia and fancy themselves experts on all forms of discourse.
Again, it is an illogical comparison to imply that supporting law enforcement and supporting war are the same thing. I believe that is called the fallacy of false analogy.
Had you wondered, Voice of 'Reason', why it is that the civilians in control of the military, you know, consult with military people before making decisions (this admin and possibly the Johnson admin are notable exceptions)? Could it be perhaps that there is a realization that those that have served might, you know, have some special insights into such things?
Of course... on tactical and strategic matters. The decision on whether to go to war in the first place, however, is left in the hands of civilians.
Yes, and look at the results…
And in any case, you're shredding your own position, since the men and women who are in the military (djtyg notwithstanding) overwhelmingly support the war.
Or so Fox News would have you believe. As I assume that you have never served, it is your ignorance of the military machine that allows you to make such a claim. You are making a hasty generalization – a conclusion premised on little and/or biased information.
The most ridiculous excuses that I have seen are akin to your examples here - police, etc. Apples and oranges. Policemen are not generally the tools of the civilian leadership, to be used to implement poorly thought out, poorly planned, foreign policy decisions.
And here we have yet another logical fallacy, petitio principii, better known as assuming the conclusion or begging the question. You believe that this particular war is poorly thought out and poorly planned... but the burden is on you to prove it.
Another hasty generalization. Perhaps you have heard of the recent book titled ‘Fiasco’?
Of course any right-thinking person would oppose bad policy. Unfortunately for you, you can't just say "You're an idiot because you favor bad policy." You have to prove that the policy is bad.
I have not said that you or anyone else is an idiot. I commented on the opinions of a large and growing number of people – even some associated with the present administration – that believe the red herring invasion of Iraq was bad policy. Any thinking person should conclude that it was poorly planned and poorly thought out. One need only review the claims made by administration officials (and I am not talking about the manufactured justifications for invading Iraq) to see this – statues to George Bush? Out in 6 weeks? Cost only a few billion dollars? These people live in a fantasy world built upon ideology. Any thinking person should be able to see that.
The military, on the other hand, is at the disposal of this civilian leadership. And it is very easy for the civilian leadership to see the military as numbers and pawns, have they not served.
"Pawns?" Excuse me, did you say "pawns?" Which side in the debate over the war uses military coffins as props? Which side is ghoulishly keeping a body count, throwing a damned celebration whenever it reaches a round number? Which side insists on shrieking "quagmire", which side trumpets every setback and ignores every success, which side parrots the same tired hyperbole over and over again?
The side rooted in reality, not fantasy? Which side ignores the deaths and suffering? Which side calls the American war dead ‘just numbers’? Which side tries to paint every setback as a success? Which side keeps using fear and smear tactics to try to sway the public?
So, yes, I did say Pawns, which is how the likes of Mantova sees the members of the Armed Forces. And, as apparently you do.
The police most certainly are at the disposal of the civilian leadership.
Not to enforce foreign policy. I should have thought a Voice of ‘Reason’ would get that.
I fail to see any significant difference that enables a civilian to advocate sending the police to fight and die yet does not enable that same civilian to advocate sending the military to fight and die.
And that is why you are unable to distinguish between logical fallacies and relevant discourse. Advocating for law enforcement is not advocating that they march onto the battlefield and either kill the enemy or get killed themselves. Any rational person can see the fallacy.
It is illogical to compare being supportive of the local police or rooting for a sports team to advocating for war.
Yes, both of those things would be illogical, had I advocated either of them. But I haven't, so you're demonstrating yet another fallacy, the strawman.
Yes, it would be a strawman, had I been referring explicitly and only to you. Alas, I was making a general comment. I am sure there is some fancy name for the logical fallacy of assuming all commentary is precisely about oneself, but I don’t know or care. Is not this running commentary on Mantova and chickenhawks in general?
I never said anything about rooting for a sports team, so I'm not sure which sphincter you pulled that one out of. And I didn't compare favoring the war to being "supportive of the local police." The latter would be analogous to being "supportive of the military"... which many people are without supporting the war.
Your self-importance is exceeded only by your use of fallacious reasoning.
No, I compared supporting the war with using the police to enforce the law. Both involve sending men to fight, sacrifice, and in too many cases die in order to achieve policy goals.
And yet another false analogy. Supporting a war is not at all like using police to enforce the law.
Illogical, stupid, and cowardly.
Neener neener neener! LOLZ. Boogers!
Just the sort of response I have come to expect from conservative pseudointellectuals and false patriots.
Let's get back to this blog's basic principle. Despite our rather snarky slogan, we welcome anyone's right to express their opinions.
But opinions have no right to respect; respect must be earned. That's why Rob Ash's question to Anthony Mantova is very legitimate: If the GWOT is so important for America, why isn't it at least as important for Anthony Mantova?
And if fighting the GWOT is only important for "other people," why should we respect his opinion?
Mantova is free to make a fool of himself by supporting a war in which he, though quite eligible, refuses even to consider fighting.
And we are quite free to label him a cowardly hypocrite for doing so.
I just don't understand why President Bush's strongest supporters have so little confidence in his, and Secretary Rumsfeld's, leadership.
They're hurting the President and Secretary Rumsfeld. Don't they want them to succeed and, dare say it, WIN?
Please explain, using consistent arguments and without resorting to ad hominem, why those who advocate law enforcement and refuse to/have not joined the police force are not hypocrites and cowards. Good luck!
Speaking of illogical arguments…
That's not an argument, it's a question... or a challenge, if you prefer. You repeatedly claim that the situations are not analogous, yet seem to be unable to explain the qualitative difference that makes the analogy fail.
I always get a kick out of pseudointellectuals that have apparently visited Wikipedia and fancy themselves experts on all forms of discourse.
Oh no, I was an expert on all forms of discourse before Wikipedia existed.
Again, it is an illogical comparison to imply that supporting law enforcement and supporting war are the same thing.
It would be an illogical comparison to claim that supporting law enforcement and supporting war are the same thing. But if you can take a break from beating up that strawman for a minute, I'll remind you that I didn't say they were the same thing, I said they were analogous. Which they are, despite your somewhat plaintive attempts at proof by assertion.
Of course... on tactical and strategic matters. The decision on whether to go to war in the first place, however, is left in the hands of civilians.
Yes, and look at the results…
Okay! A dictator in the dock, his murderous sons dead, a democratic legislature elected, a Constitution ratified, and all in an unbelievably short amount of time.
But on a more fundamental level, exactly what did you mean by "yes, and look at the results?" Are you saying that you think that the military shouldn't be under civilian control? Are you saying that civilian oversight of the military is a bad thing?
And in any case, you're shredding your own position, since the men and women who are in the military (djtyg notwithstanding) overwhelmingly support the war.
Or so Fox News would have you believe. As I assume that you have never served, it is your ignorance of the military machine that allows you to make such a claim.
Funny, I've never heard a serviceman, or for that matter a family member of a serviceman, refer to the armed forces as "the military machine." I'm going to step way out on a limb here and assume that you haven't served either... and your way of referring to the military shows just how much (or little) respect you have for it.
As for how the military feels about the war, by better than a 2 to 1 ratio servicemen think it was right to go to war in Iraq... and also approves of George W. Bush's performance regarding Iraq. 73% feel that the U.S. is very likely or somewhat likely to succeed. See, this is what happens when you insist on finding objective data, rather than parroting the Democratic Underground line.
I have not said that you or anyone else is an idiot.
Oh... was it somebody else named doppelganger who wrote "Illogical, stupid, and cowardly" then?
I commented on the opinions of a large and growing number of people – even some associated with the present administration – that believe the red herring invasion of Iraq was bad policy.
No, you declared the policy to be "poorly thought out, poorly planned" without providing any evidence to back this up. You stated something as fact that needed to be proved.
By the way, your revised position is an example of argumentum ad populum. What's the fallacy count up to now, five?
One need only review the claims made by administration officials (and I am not talking about the manufactured justifications for invading Iraq) to see this – statues to George Bush? Out in 6 weeks? Cost only a few billion dollars?
Please provide a source for these claims. In the meantime, I'll dig up a few liberal sources predicting tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of American casualties, okay?
These people live in a fantasy world built upon ideology. Any thinking person should be able to see that.
I'm pretty sure that "any thinking person believes X" is another fallacy but regrettably I can't think of the name at the moment. In any case, I would apply your "fantasy world built upon ideology" exactly to the antiwar left. They refuse to see any facts which contradict their comfortable predetermined position. They were bound and determined, even before the war took place, to see it as a quagmire, no matter what happened.
Which side ignores the deaths and suffering?
One side honors the deaths and the suffering, the other uses them to promote a political cause. Neither ignores them.
Which side calls the American war dead ‘just numbers’?
Please provide an example of somebody calling the American war dead "just numbers". While you're doing that, have a look-see at this slightly out-of-date post. As of today, 2,613 American servicemen and women have lost their lives during the three and a half years since the invasion of Iraq. Every single one of these deaths is a tragedy, and I mourn the sacrifice of each and every one of these brave soldiers. 2,613 is also the number of Americans killed by smoking in about two and a half days. Twice as many Americans die each year from falling down the stairs than have died each year in Iraq. War is terrible and costly... but the war in Iraq has been blissfully, mercifully, blessedly, miraculously less costly than most. This is a cause for relief and thanksgiving, not for proclaiming quagmire.
Which side tries to paint every setback as a success?
Example, please.
Which side keeps using fear and smear tactics to try to sway the public?
The one that's been screaming warnings about the imminent draft for three years now.
The police most certainly are at the disposal of the civilian leadership.
Not to enforce foreign policy. I should have thought a Voice of ‘Reason’ would get that.
Ohhh. So it's okay for a civilian to advocate that others fight and die to enforce domestic policy but if that same civilian advocates that others fight and die to enforce foreign policy, he's a cowardly hypocritical chickenhawk. Got it.
No, wait, I don't got it. What's the qualitative difference that makes the same action by the same person perfectly acceptable in one case but cowardly in the other?
Of course law enforcement isn't identical to military action. But you're seizing on an immaterial difference to claim that they're not analogous.
Advocating for law enforcement is not advocating that they march onto the battlefield and either kill the enemy or get killed themselves.
The "enemy" is armed criminals and gangs. The "battlefield" is their territory. To "kill or get killed themselves" is to kill or get killed themselves. That's an analogy.
Cops can be killed and are killed in the line of duty. You know that. You recognize that if you insist that our police officers fight crime, many of them will die carrying out your wishes. And yet you do it anyway, despite never having been a police officer yourself. And you know what? There's nothing wrong with that. There's nothing cowardly or hypocritical about it. Just as it's neither cowardly nor hypocritical for a civilian to argue in favor of military action.
Yes, it would be a strawman, had I been referring explicitly and only to you. Alas, I was making a general comment.
Oh. So who did compare advocating for war to rooting for a sports team? I'm sure you have several examples, since you're claiming that it wasn't a strawman.
"Illogical, stupid, and cowardly."
Neener neener neener! LOLZ. Boogers!
Just the sort of response I have come to expect from conservative pseudointellectuals and false patriots.
Yes, I would imagine that if you've frequently engaged in this kind of debate with people like me, you have become accustomed to being the target of mockery for your ad hominem.
But opinions have no right to respect; respect must be earned. That's why Rob Ash's question to Anthony Mantova is very legitimate: If the GWOT is so important for America, why isn't it at least as important for Anthony Mantova?
If law enforcement is so important for America, why isn't it at least as important for you?
Mantova is free to make a fool of himself by supporting a war in which he, though quite eligible, refuses even to consider fighting.
Do you make a fool of yourself by supporting a police force in which you, though (presumably) quite eligible, refuse to even consider joining?
And we are quite free to label him a cowardly hypocrite for doing so.
Do you care whether your label is fair or justified?
I just don't understand why President Bush's strongest supporters have so little confidence in his, and Secretary Rumsfeld's, leadership.
I would say that I don't understand why you have so little confidence in your local police chief's leadership, but that would be dishonest of me. I know that your refusal to join the police force says nothing about whether or not you have confidence in your local chief.
They're hurting the President and Secretary Rumsfeld. Don't they want them to succeed and, dare say it, WIN?
Uh, no, not really. I want America to succeed, and I do indeed dare say it, win. I don't particularly (if you'll excuse the language) give a ripe fuck about the personal success of the President or any member of his Cabinet. Regrettably, I see many, many people on the political left who seem all too happy to see America falter as long as it reflects badly on the President. I think that a substantial number of people have sadly become so blinded by hatred of this President and this Administration that they've lost sight of what's important. They hate Bush more than they love America.
Dear Voice of Reason,
First, I don't care to get into an overly-lengthy discourse with somone like you.
But, just a few observations:
Actually, I did serve in the military. I seved in a combat unit. During the Reagan administration. I was a paratrooper and was in the same unit as Rob Ash, we actually went to basic training and AIT together.
Let me guess - you did not serve?
A 2-1 ratio in support of the war means that 1/3 of the military do not approve. That is a substantial number.
Describing one's position as being stupid is not the same thing as calling someone an idiot, your attempt at proof by assertion notwithstanding. I should have thought one so well versed in the Latin names for illogical argumentation would at least be able to recognize whethor or not such illogical arguments are being employed. labeling unconfortable issues 'illogical arguments' does not make them so.
I don't know how else to explain the difference between supporting a war and supporting law enforcement. I cannot overcome your invincible ignorance on that one.
But no - you go on supporting a farce of a war, go on advocating sending other people to fight, and go on thinking yourself a patriot.
That is what gutless cowardly hypocrites do.
Yes, you will consider this an ad hominem. However, I am not using this apt description of the likes of Mantova and chickenhawks everywhere to argue against their position, so it is not, in any sense, an illogical argument, as I am not making an argument.
Just an observation. And as far as I know, the religio-fascists in the GOP still allow people to make observations.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Oh - and the spanking you are giving us all?
Well, conservatives are certainly fairly well known for their inflated sense of self.
Wow... CU... I posted there a few years ago on evolution. Man o man - some of the stupidest things you will ever hear oozes from the lips (typed by the fingers) of conservastive science-haters.
It is a strange phenomenon - so many conservatives consider themselves experts on things that they clearly know very little about, usually by virtue of having read some biased screed or visiting a few websites.
Like serving in the military. Or science.
voice of reason-
Please stay on-topic.
Anthony Mantova has not, to my knowledge, written a column in the Eureka Reporter about law enforcement.
This blog has focused on Mantova's public support for military action overseas. And the label of cowardly hypocrite is both fair and justified, especially since he also ignored at least two OYE e-mails asking for comment, well before our posting.
Mantova remains free to speak for himself.
We share your desire that America succeed; that includes our current President, regardless of how (or whether) we voted in the last election.
Since the topic of this blog is military recruiting when our nation is fighting the GWOT, and may invade Iran (as Mantova urged recently) have you any specific suggestions? We welcome them.
Thank you.
Actually, I did serve in the military.
Thank you very much for your service.
Let me guess - you did not serve?
Not at all relevant to my position on the war, just as your service (or lack thereof) in the police force is relevant to your position on law enforcement.
A 2-1 ratio in support of the war means that 1/3 of the military do not approve.]
Uh, actually, no, it doesn't, genius. If you'd clicked on the link I helpfully provided, you'd see why. I could simply explain to you why you're wrong, but I think it'd be more helpful to you to leave it as an exercise.
Describing one's position as being stupid is not the same thing as calling someone an idiot
Okay, you're right, you did not call me an idiot. I retract the assertion.
See how easy it is to admit it when you're wrong?
I don't know how else to explain the difference between supporting a war and supporting law enforcement.
Once again, of course there is a difference between supporting a war and supporting law enforcement. For example: one of them is supporting a war, while the other one is supporting law enforcement, that's a pretty substantial difference there. I'm not saying that the two are identical, I'm saying that they're analogous. Do you understand the concept?
However, I am not using this apt description of the likes of Mantova and chickenhawks everywhere to argue against their position, so it is not, in any sense, an illogical argument, as I am not making an argument.
No, you're just tossing insults. It's immature, but this is a free country, you've got every right to be as much of a child as you'd like to be.
Just an observation. And as far as I know, the religio-fascists in the GOP still allow people to make observations.
As I said, it's a free country. Feel free, if you'd like, to "observe" that Mantova is a great big doo-doo head, if it makes you feel better.
Oh - and the spanking you are giving us all? Well, conservatives are certainly fairly well known for their inflated sense of self.
Guilty as charged. I do, indeed, have a very inflated sense of self. In this case, though, it's fully justified.
Wow... CU... I posted there a few years ago on evolution. Man o man - some of the stupidest things you will ever hear oozes from the lips (typed by the fingers) of conservastive science-haters.
I don't agree with everything posted on CU, just as you don't agree with everything posted on DU (or do you?) In fact, if you check there you'll see that I have a reputation as somewhat of a contrarian. And when you (laughably, to those who know me) accuse me of being a "science-hater" by virtue of the fact that I read CU, I'm afraid it is you who is engaging in a hasty generalization.
voice of reason- Please stay on-topic. Anthony Mantova has not, to my knowledge, written a column in the Eureka Reporter about law enforcement.
I thought I'd made this clear: I have no idea who Anthony Mantova is. I found a link to this blog and found the concept of an entire blog based off of the gigantically fallacious "chickenhawk" argument to be very amusing. So I hopped into the first available comment thread (this one, as it turns out) to explain to you all where you're going wrong.
So please, tell me again exactly whom you consider a "chickenhawk". From what I've gathered, it's a person who a) supports the war, b) is eligible for military service, and c) hasn't considered military service. That's a pretty narrow category... I'm sure that Mantova, whoever he is, has at least considered enlisting, as has just about everybody. But never mind that, I'll ask you once again to explain the substantive difference between a "chickenhawk" as defined above and a person who supports law enforcement, is eligible to join the police force, but hasn't considered joining the police force. And please, try not to claim that there's such a qualitative difference between the foreign and domestic use of force as to make the advocacy of one repugnant while the advocacy of the other is acceptable, or you'll be laughed out of court.
We share your desire that America succeed; that includes our current President, regardless of how (or whether) we voted in the last election.
Is this the royal "we"? Because I never said anything about you preferring to see America fail than the President succeed. But there's an awful lot of people over at the DU that the shoe fits.
Since the topic of this blog is military recruiting when our nation is fighting the GWOT, and may invade Iran (as Mantova urged recently) have you any specific suggestions? We welcome them.
Yeah. I suggest that you let the military do its job. I suggest that you don't worry about there being a shortage of soldiers until the military warns of a shortage of soldiers. And I strongly suggest that you stop trying to shut up your opponents by falsely accusing them of hypocrisy. There's nothing hypocritical about supporting a war you are unwilling to personally fight in, any more than there's anything hypocritical about supporting the use of force in a fight against crime you are unwilling to personally join.
Thank you.
No charge.
voice of reason-
This blog is Operation Yellow Elephant, not Operation "Chickenhawk."
There's a difference between a "chickenhawk" and a Yellow Elephant. By our definition, a "chickenhawk" is too old to serve. [The rest of the definition is simple: supporters of current war(s) who, for whatever reason, did not serve in the military (or in combat) when they were eligible.] This blog focuses on Yellow Elephants, who are eligible to serve.
Please stick to our topic. If you want to discuss other topics, e.g. on Democratic Underground (DU), please feel free to go there and do so. This blog is not DU and we are not responsible for views expressed elsewhere.
In answer to your question, here's what we consider to be a "Yellow Elephant:" Someone who
a) is eligible to serve; and
b) supports the war (including new ones, e.g., Iran); and
c) has not personally considered serving in it/them.
d) For those who have considered serving but decided not to, the results of their deliberations are relevant to public discussion of their opinions on the war itself. [There are many valid reasons for some people eligible to serve to decide not to, but they remain a legitimate topic of debate.]
It is indeed a narrow category, for a reason. We are trying to encourage those eligible to serve who support the war to consider volunteering for military service.
You may be "certain that Mantova, whoever he is, has at least considered enlisting," but we're not. We've asked him that question directly, more than once, but he has apparently chosen not to respond. Rob Ash asked him, and he did.
We focus on the flimsy excuses of those eligible cowards like Mantova who only support war if others do the real fighting.
I suggest that you let the military do its job. I suggest that you don't worry about there being a shortage of soldiers until the military warns of a shortage of soldiers.
You're obviously not following military recruiting as closely as we are. Military recruiting is not going perfectly, as the Iraqi civilians raped/murdered by PFC Steven D. Green can confirm. [He enlisted early in 2005 and was already discharged early, by the military, before he was arrested.] The Army would not have had to take him if more well qualified real Americans, like Anthony Mantova, were contacting military recruiters to sign up.
And I strongly suggest that you stop trying to shut up your opponents by falsely accusing them of hypocrisy.
Despite our slogan, we are not trying to tell anyone that they cannot express their opinions. By highlighting serious inconsistencies in the public positions of the Yellow Elephants, we are engaging in robust, uninhibited debate.
In this circumstance, hypocrisy is not a false accusation. It's based on public, on the record, statements. It is quite legitimate to ask Anthony Mantova why winning the GWOT is so important for America yet not so important for him even to consider volunteering to serve in it.
Why don't you ask Anthony Mantova yourself? Just click on his name.
Thank you.
Let me guess - you did not serve?
Not at all relevant to my position on the war, just as your service (or lack thereof) in the police force is relevant to your position on law enforcement.
1. I'll take that as a clear and big, fat NO.
2. Still oozing false analogies, I see. Of course my having not been a police officer is irrelevant to whether or not I support law enforcement. While police officers may get killed in the line of duty, it is not their job to kill and/or be killed as a requisite of their job. You could get killed as you drive your Hummer to the welfare office, but that will not equate living on the dole to being a soldier any more than being a police officer is just like being a soldier.
It is entertaining to see how desperate some folks are to avoid letting their hypocrisy and moral cowardice show.
You may be "certain that Mantova, whoever he is, has at least considered enlisting," but we're not.
Who hasn't? Who hasn't considered, however briefly, enlisting in the military, becoming a professional athlete, running away and joining the circus?
We focus on the flimsy excuses of those eligible cowards like Mantova who only support war if others do the real fighting.
Ah, here we go again. Are you a coward for supporting law enforcement only if others do the fighting and the dying? Can any of you guys explain why this analogy isn't dead on?
Military recruiting is not going perfectly, as the Iraqi civilians raped/murdered by PFC Steven D. Green can confirm.
You have got to be kidding. There are a few bad apples among over a hundred thousand, and you're blaming recruiting? How many criminals are there among other professions? What percentage of lawyers, of auto mechanics, of politicians are criminals? Does the military ever turn away qualified recruits? Is there any reason to believe that Green was enlisted because the military was desperate for recruits, instead of being an example of a nutcase slipping past screening?
In this circumstance, hypocrisy is not a false accusation. It's based on public, on the record, statements. It is quite legitimate to ask Anthony Mantova why winning the GWOT is so important for America yet not so important for him even to consider volunteering to serve in it.
Why is law enforcement so important to America yet not so important for you to join the police force? (I won't say consider joining the police force, as I'm sure it's crossed your mind.)
This is becoming boring. I've made my point, and none of you have answered it. Explain why the analogy to police (and fire) is not appropriate, concede that there's no hypocrisy in civilians advocating either law enforcement (and firefighting) or war, or continue to engage in cognitive dissonance. Pick one.
Why don't you ask Anthony Mantova yourself? Just click on his name.
Because it's not in the least bit relevant to anything.
1. I'll take that as a clear and big, fat NO.
Take it as you will; I still refuse to answer on the grounds of irrelevance.
2. Still oozing false analogies, I see.
Still grasping for increasingly entertaining pretext for claiming an analogy is false, I see.
Of course my having not been a police officer is irrelevant to whether or not I support law enforcement.
Agreed. And of course my not having been (or having been, for that matter) a soldier is irrelevant to whether or not I support a war.
While police officers may get killed in the line of duty, it is not their job to kill and/or be killed as a requisite of their job.
Ah, another one of those laughably flimsy pretexts. It's not a soldier's job to kill and/or be killed as a prerequisite of his job, either. Soldiers are not given orders to "kill those guys", they're given orders to seize and hold territory, to capture a town, to take control of a strategic bridge. They're given orders to attack and destroy high-value military targets. Killing and/or dying is not a soldier's raison d'etre, achieving military objectives is.
You could get killed as you drive your Hummer to the welfare office, but that will not equate living on the dole to being a soldier any more than being a police officer is just like being a soldier.
Both police officers and soldiers are given under orders to use force, deadly force if necessary, against enemies who wish to prevent them from achieving their objectives using deadly force of their own. The analogy is nearly perfect.
It is entertaining to see how desperate some folks are to avoid letting their hypocrisy and moral cowardice show.
It's much, much more entertaining to see how some folks will grasp at the flimsiest of straws in order to avoid having to listen to their opponents' arguments by calling them names instead.
VOR, unfortunately the police officer analogy is dead on, but only to prove exactly the opposite of your argument.
Consider this:
Let's say that you are an expert martial artist, which I seriously doubt (pardon the ad hominid, there is just no honor of martial ways to your thinking).
Now let's say that you are also a rocket scientist, or some other honorable profession.
Now let's say that, even though you are not a policeman, you are qualified (being an expert martial artist) to protect individuals.
Now let's say that you are walking down the street, in a "bad" neighborhood and you see a rape in progress.
What do you do?
I can think of a few things:
1. Call the police.
2. Write a blog about your experience after you ran home with your tail between your legs.
3. Disable the rapist by any means.
4. Start a committee.
Remember, you are not a police officer.
You just happen to be qualified and feel that it is your duty to volunteer your service to what you believe in.
I hope you picked number three. If not, well, I pity you. If so, then we can get you some expert training, hell, I'll even help pay for it. Shit, if you are in central Texas, I'll give you a ride to the recruitment office of your choice and even buy you lunch. If your not in central Texas, I bet we can get someone out there to give you a ride, give me about a week and we can get someone to volunteer and I'll still buy you lunch and shell out for the gas.
BTW, what was your ASVAB score again? Mine was a 98 and qualified for a MOS of EOD and ranger school.
Until you take the ASVAB, you really have not considered military service, but that's my opinion and thanks for listening.
And just another note, I am a research scientist that studies ballistics armor to protect our troops, what do you do for your cause?
Sifu Jesse
Sifu Jesse-
And for those who are not expert martial artists or similarly highly-trained professionals (albeit not police officers), choice one, calling the police is the thing to do.
In the same way that those not personally eligible to serve should encourage their eligible relatives and friends, their circles of influence, at least to consider volunteering for military service.
More conclusion jumping form the conservative.
I have listened to the "arguments" made by yellow elephants and chickenhawks.
Not accepting an argument as valid is not the same thing as not listening to them.
(pardon the ad hominid, there is just no honor of martial ways to your thinking)
Oh, no problem, you're excused. Anybody who'd write "ad hominid" is clearly a bit, well, deficient in perception, so you need not worry about the occasional error.
Now let's say that you are walking down the street, in a "bad" neighborhood and you see a rape in progress. ... Remember, you are not a police officer.
That's easy, I'd step in and help. In an emergent situation where my aid is critically required, I'd do what was necessary. On the other hand, when it comes to typical law enforcement tasks such as conducting patrols, doing investigations, running sting operations and so forth, I'd defer to those who choose to make law enforcement their profession.
Analogy? If I wake up one morning to find Mongolian troops have invaded my town, I grab my guns and load them full of ammunition. When there's not such an emergency, I defer to the professional soldiers.
BTW, what was your ASVAB score again? Mine was a 98 and qualified for a MOS of EOD and ranger school.
Never took it, but my God, since it came up in this thread I checked out some info about it. Looking at some sample questions, I cannot believe that this test is taken seriously. I've seen easier questions on a preschool entrance exam. This is what is used to judge the competency of military recruits?
Q1. A magnet will attract
water.
a flower.
a cloth rag.
a nail.
Q2. If twelve workers are needed to run 4 machines, how many workers are needed to run 20?
20
48
60
80
Q3. The wind is variable today.
mild
shifting
steady
chilling
Jeebus. Now I'm tempted to take the test just for grins, just like I took the LSAT for grins despite having no interest in being a lawyer.
It's been my experience that people who brag about their standardized test scores are, in general, worthless. Tell you what, Jesse. I haven't taken the ASVAB but I'll beg glad to. I'll bet you that I can beat your ASVAB score. One thousand dollars. Do we have a wager? Or are you a hypocrite and a coward?
And for those who are not expert martial artists or similarly highly-trained professionals (albeit not police officers), choice one, calling the police is the thing to do.
Correct!
In the same way that those not personally eligible to serve should encourage their eligible relatives and friends, their circles of influence, at least to consider volunteering for military service.
Incorrect! Or, at least, not analogous.
If you're not a highly-trained professional, the thing to do is to call the police. The thing to do is to ask that other people, people who are professionals, people who have chosen to act as the guardians of society, put their own bodies on the line to take action that you are unable or unwilling to take yourself. Is that hypocritical? Is that cowardly? No, of course it is not. Neither is it hypocritical or cowardly for a civilian to ask soldiers to fight.
More conclusion jumping form the conservative.
How ironic. I'm not a conservative... you have jumped to an erroneous conclusion.
Not accepting an argument as valid is not the same thing as not listening to them.
This is true. And failure to refute an argument is not the same thing as either.
voice of reason-
Neither is it hypocritical or cowardly for a civilian to ask soldiers to fight.
I think you're missing our point.
We're asking civilians who support military action overseas, if qualified to serve, to consider becoming soldiers themselves.
VOR is not missing the point, He just doesn't want to hear it,, Because it make him personally uncomfortable about himself and his support for the war. He cravenly won't address the question
He's just desperately trying to change the subject.
We know He's not a soldier,cop,firefighter,lawyer or a martial arts expert.
What does he do to survive anyway?He sure has a lot of leisure time to sit on his ass and make excuses.
"I'll bet you that I can beat your ASVAB score. One thousand dollars. Do we have a wager? Or are you a hypocrite and a coward?"
Let's do it. But how about 10 bucks, research scientist don't make that much money. Key word "beat". That means you need to score 99-100 percent. And I would have to have proven records of other than what you just tell me. Answer this one for me if you can.
Q1. A magnet will attract
water.
a flower.
a cloth rag.
a nail.
Sorry for the misspelling, early morning and coffee and trusting spell check will to that to you, I'm much better at math. Now back to the rape in progress.
"That's easy, I'd step in and help. In an emergent situation where my aid is critically required, I'd do what was necessary"
Is our aid not critically required in the middle east? If not, then why are we there. Why are they calling on reservist Marines who have already served-more than once? Sounds pretty critical to me. Why has the recruitment age been increased?
We can get you expert training needed, like I said, I'd pitch in and help pay for it.
"And for those who are not expert martial artists or similarly highly-trained professionals (albeit not police officers), choice one, calling the police is the thing to do." Of course, that is why I stated that you are trained.
So how many military recruits are going into service as their vocation? How many police recruits are?
Lastly
"deficient in perception, so you need not worry about the occasional error."
To this I say fuck you. I'm a rocket scientist, you know the profession that all other things besides brain surgery is held against. If you have studied physics then you would know that it is all in the perception, I am not deficient in perception but yet enlightened.
I'm still waiting to hear your profession. I support our troops even though this situation in the middle east is wrong, against the martial ways. You took the LSAT, what about the GRE? How many letters have you earned after your name, I got more that there are in my name.
Study Miamoto Musashi. I suggest The Book of Five Rings, even though I am breaking the last rule of the way by even conversing with you.
"We know He's not a soldier,cop,firefighter,lawyer or a martial arts expert.
What does he do to survive anyway?He sure has a lot of leisure time to sit on his ass and make excuses."
I'm pretty sure he just creates CO2 and puts off BTU's.
Sifu Jesse
Here in Texas we have a saying
"Shut up or stand up."
We're asking civilians who support military action overseas, if qualified to serve, to consider becoming soldiers themselves.
Are you asking civilians who support police action domestically, if qualified to serve, to consider becoming police officers themselves? Are you calling those who do not "yellow"?
Because it make him personally uncomfortable about himself and his support for the war.
Guess again. Are you uncomfortable about the fact that you are (presumably) not a police officer? Does it cause you the slightest bit of angst over your support for using armed men to enforce the law? Me neither. Nor do I feel at all uncomfortable about supporting the war though a civilian.
He cravenly won't address the question
What question?
He's just desperately trying to change the subject.
Said the pot to the kettle. Rather than listening to your opponents' arguments in favor of the war, rather than attempt to refute those arguments, you simply insult your opponents. You're the one who's unwilling to remain on the subject. I'd confidently take any or all of you on regarding the merits of the war, but you'd prefer to stick your heads in the sand and scream "coward! craven! yellow!" I note that the one substantive point that I've made regarding the war -- that the casualty rate that leads the left to shriek "quagmire" is in fact blessedly low -- has gone totally unanswered.
Let's do it. But how about 10 bucks, research scientist don't make that much money.
What, are you a coward? A chicken? A hypocrite? Not willing to put your money (which is, after all, only money... not blood) on the line in defense of your beliefs? No deal. Not worth my time. Besides, if you're so sure that your ASVAB score is indicative of higher intelligence, you shouldn't fear losing.
Key word "beat". That means you need to score 99-100 percent. And I would have to have proven records of other than what you just tell me.
Of course. And naturally, I would require proof of your score as well.
Answer this one for me if you can. Q1. A magnet will attract...
Honestly, I'm still shaking my head in amazement at that question. What kind of an idiot would get that wrong? If I came upon that question on a standardized test, I'd consider it an insult to my intelligence, on the same level as if someone had asked me if a million is more or less than 5.
Is our aid not critically required in the middle east? If not, then why are we there.
Is our aid critically required to fight gangs? If not, then why are we risking (and in many cases losing) officers' lives? And if so, why haven't you joined the police force?
If you have studied physics then you would know that it is all in the perception...
Um, what the heck does that mean? I have studied physics, and this sentence is pure gobbledegook. What is the antecedent for the pronoun "it"? What is "all" in the perception? I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you merely have trouble expressing yourself.
I'm still waiting to hear your profession.
It's not too hard to figure it out. I'm sure a rocket scientist like yourself has the skills to solve this minor puzzle.
How many letters have you earned after your name, I got more that there are in my name.
In my experience, people who brag about their degrees are even more worthless than people who brag about their test scores.
voice of 'reason'-
Are you asking civilians who support police action domestically, if qualified to serve, to consider becoming police officers themselves? Are you calling those who do not "yellow"?
Your question is off-topic for this blog. Please stay on-topic.
You're 'answering' our question with a question. We'd prefer an answer.
Your question is off-topic for this blog. Please stay on-topic.
Another instance of avoidance. My analogy is perfectly on-topic for this blog, as it highlights the moral bankruptcy of your position. But just as you'd rather avoid answering your opponents' arguments in favor of the war by shouting "chickenhawk! chickenhawk!", you'd rather avoid facing the fact that this analogy shreds your position by shouting "off-topic! off-topic!"
You're 'answering' our question with a question.
I ask again, what question? The question I asked you was in response to a statement, not a question. What is the question you'd like me to answer?
"In my experience, people who brag about their degrees are even more worthless than people who brag about their test scores."
most are not degrees.
"It's not too hard to figure it out. I'm sure a rocket scientist like yourself has the skills to solve this minor puzzle."
Still waiting....
"Um, what the heck does that mean? I have studied physics, and this sentence is pure gobbledegook. What is the antecedent for the pronoun "it"? What is "all" in the perception? I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you merely have trouble expressing yourself."
Simple perception if you have studied physics, this would make perfect sense and your starting to sound like Clinton.
"Is our aid critically required to fight gangs?"
Aid, as in the sense of helping others. Fighting gangs is helping ourselves, not aid.
"Honestly, I'm still shaking my head in amazement at that question. What kind of an idiot would get that wrong? If I came upon that question on a standardized test, I'd consider it an insult to my intelligence, on the same level as if someone had asked me if a million is more or less than 5."
Answer the question.
"What, are you a coward? A chicken? A hypocrite? Not willing to put your money (which is, after all, only money... not blood) on the line in defense of your beliefs? No deal. Not worth my time. Besides, if you're so sure that your ASVAB score is indicative of higher intelligence, you shouldn't fear losing."
If it is only money, then why would it be a waste of your time, you have spent more being just here alone.
I simply don't bet something I am not willing to lose. I never said anything about ASVAB being indicative of highter intelligence, the question was if you have even taken it, thus seriously considered enlisting.
Anyway, the average score on the ASVAB is 83%, so are calling our troops stupid?
Sifu Jesse
most are not degrees.
It's all the same. People who are competent and are confident about it simply display their competence. People who are either incompetent or insecure boast of their credentials.
Still waiting....
As I said: figure it out. There's more than enough information on this comment thread to lead an intelligent person to deduce a number of facts about me, including my occupation. You're a smart guy, figure it out.
Simple perception if you have studied physics, this would make perfect sense and your starting to sound like Clinton.
"You're", not "your". As a matter of fact, I have studied physics... rather extensively, as it happens. I've tried to be polite and I've tried to give you the benefit of the doubt, but I must tell you that your incredibly muddled thinking leads me to doubt your claims of being a rocket scientist.
Aid, as in the sense of helping others. Fighting gangs is helping ourselves, not aid.
Fighting wars is helping ourselves, too.
Answer the question.
Sheesh. The magnet would attract the nail, because the iron atoms of which it is made exhibit strong ferromagnetic properties, causing it to experience a force when placed in a magnetic field. Your turn: list several common reactions involving ammonium perchlorate.
If it is only money, then why would it be a waste of your time, you have spent more being just here alone.
Being here isn't a waste of time; I could tell you why, but once again all the information is right here on the page for you to see.
simply don't bet something I am not willing to lose.
Oh. So you're a coward. Gotcha.
Anyway, the average score on the ASVAB is 83%, so are calling our troops stupid?
No, I'm saying that if the questions I've seen are representative, good performance on the ASVAB is no indicator of intelligence.
Someone tell me if orade and vor are the same person.
23 Oracle
Jul 16th, 2006 at 11:37 pm
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).
Someone tell me if orade and vor are the same person.
No.
"Someone tell me if orade and vor are the same person?"
I hope they're the same person,
I'd like to think God wouldn't make the same mistake twice.
voice of 'reason'-
You're 'answering' our question with a question.
I ask again, what question? The question I asked you was in response to a statement, not a question. What is the question you'd like me to answer?
Given ongoing military recruiting difficulties, do those eligible to serve who support the war have an obligation at least to consider volunteering for military service?
Given ongoing military recruiting difficulties, do those eligible to serve who support the war have an obligation at least to consider volunteering for military service?
In the first place, the question makes an assumption: that there are "ongoing military recruiting difficulties." In the second place, the question is vague: what constitutes "consideration?" Having the idea cross one's mind? Taking the ASVAB? Contacting a recruited for further details? But in the third place, the answer to your question is "no, they do not," any more than those who support law enforcement have an obligation to consider joining to police force, even if the police force is having difficulty recruiting.
I've answered your question. Now answer mine.
Actually, you haven't answered my question. You are disputing that there are ongoing military recruiting difficulties. Operation Yellow Elephant only came into being in Spring 2005 when both the Army and the Marines began to miss their monthly recruiting quotas. Acceptance of this fact is an essential element of the question.
Uh, no, acceptance of this fact is not an essential element of the question. As I said, your question makes an assumption, and I answered it: even given that assumption, those who support the war have no obligation to consider service. I do indeed question whether the military is in dire need of recruits (while it's true that recruiting has fallen somewhat short of goals, reenlistments are ahead of targets), but even if it were so, the answer remains unchanged. Just as those who support law enforcement may continue to do so without considering joining the force, even if the force is seeking recruits.
VORs non-debating point that he keeps harping upon like is totally ridiculous.
However, Its kind of creepy the authoritarian way he conflates military and civilian police responsibilities.
Its Very Banana Republican
voice of reason-
So, let's reformulate my question as follows:
Accepting as fact that our military is having difficulties recruiting enough soldiers, do those eligible to serve who support the war have an obligation to consider volunteering for military service, and do those not personally eligible to serve have an obligation to encourage their eligible relatives and friends, their circles of influence, to consider serving?
What's your answer? And if it's negative, why not?
For crying out loud, Karl. How many times must I answer the exact same question?
Let's go to the tape:
But in the third place, the answer to your question is "no, they do not," any more than those who support law enforcement have an obligation to consider joining to police force, even if the police force is having difficulty recruiting. --9:15 AM Saturday
even given that assumption, those who support the war have no obligation to consider service --11:25 PM Saturday
So, on the probably futile hope that the third time will be the charm, I will answer you yet again: NO, no, a thousand times no, a supporter of the war has no obligation to consider the service. Did you hear me that time?
The answer to your question is no.
Why not? Because it's a non sequitur, that's why not. "Joe supports the war, therefore Joe must consider serving" is exactly as valid an argument as "Cats have 38 chromosomes, therefore theocracy is the best form of government." The one does not follow from the other, at least not directly. If you believe that the conclusion that Joe must consider serving is valid, the burden is on your to come up with an argument to prove it. Try to come up with an argument that wouldn't equally obligate those who support law enforcement or firefighting or any of a thousand other expenditures of government resources to consider personally taking part in them as well.
By the way, the answer to your question is no.
P.S. I seem to remember you asking me a question. I'm pretty sure I answered it, but just in case you didn't hear me, the answer is no.
OK, voice of reason, thanks for your answer to my question.
I recall that you had a question for me. Please repeat it. Thanks.
Well, I think I'll expand it to a few questions, if you don't mind.
1. I assume that your answer to the question you asked me is "yes." Is this assumption correct?
2. Could you define "consideration" of military service? Various people on this thread have offered contradictory interpretations.
3. Accepting as fact that our police are having difficulties recruiting enough officers, do those eligible to serve who support law enforcement have an obligation to consider volunteering to serve as police officers, and do those not personally eligible to serve have an obligation to encourage their eligible relatives and friends, their circles of influence, to consider becoming cops?
4. If your answer to "1" is yes and to "3" is no, why are the situations not analogous? What are the specific differences that make it reprehensible for civilians to not consider service on one case but not the other?
Haven't heard from Sifu Jesse in awhile... guess he's busy frantically Googling "ammonium perchlorate."
voice of reason-
1. Yes, that is the purpose of this blog.
2. Definition of "consideration." It's basically up to each person, but if it's not sincere, it's not "consideration." Assuming that they publicly support the war, after sincerely considering enlisting (etc.), they should share the results of their deliberations (i.e., why they chose not to volunteer or encourage their circles of influence to consider doing so) with the same audiences for their public support of the war as full disclosure of a relevant personal consideration. There are many valid reasons for some people eligible to serve to decide not to, but their readers/audiences deserve full disclosure.
3. Are you making any other assumptions here, such as the effect on the community of a police force having recruiting difficulties, or of the relative importance of the police function to the future of the community, or the decision of the community's leaders to send significant numbers of its police officers to other communities? Also, does this question assume that those who support the police function, including its additional duties elsewhere, consider themselves the leaders of the community? Please let me know.
4. I'll need to clarify your question in #3 first.
2. What if somebody "considered" joining the military in the same way that somebody might consider joining the circus? A fleeting thought crossing one's mind, quickly dismissed as not the right option? Does that count? And are people obligated to explain their thought process when choosing a career for anything but military service?
3. I'm making no other assumptions than the ones you've made regarding military service. There are no assumptions regarding consideration of oneself as "leaders of the community", any more than those who support law enforcement consider themselves leaders of the community. My followup question to you is: please explain why whether or not somebody considers himself a "leader of the community" has any relevance to career selection.
Your question about sending police officers "to other communities" is a nice red herring. No, there's no assumption about sending cops to other communities, merely sending them into harm's way to fulfill the societal goal of law enforcement. You can keep on bobbing and weaving all you want, but the fact is that my analogy is spot-on, your tag of "yellow elephant" is bogus, and you know it.
I'm going on vacation for a week so I may or may not be able to respond in a timely fashion, but you can rest assured that I will be back.
voice of reason-
2. I'm talking about sincerely considering volunteering for military service, not a passing thought.
3. My followup question to you is: please explain why whether or not somebody considers himself a "leader of the community" has any relevance to career selection.
Well, those who see themselves as "leaders of the community" generally pursue careers that will lead (no pun intended) in that direction, demonstrating their leadership abilities to their would-be followers. Since Operation Yellow Elephant focuses on the future leaders of our governing party, and comments on their ability to lead everyone in our nation, this is highly relevant.
But, in answer to your Question 3, my answer is Yes. If you want to support law enforcement, you should consider pursuing your career there; if you choose not to (as is your right), the results of your deliberations are relevant to public discussion of your opinions on that issue.
There's your answer.
Greetings from beautiful (and hot) Las Vegas.
But, in answer to your Question 3, my answer is Yes. If you want to support law enforcement, you should consider pursuing your career there; if you choose not to (as is your right), the results of your deliberations are relevant to public discussion of your opinions on that issue.
I see. Well, in that case, I do hope you will share with us your thought process in deciding not to join the police force, choosing instead to let other people defend your safety with their bodies while you sit by fat and happy. While you're on the subject, please also tell us about your deliberations which led to your cowardly and hypocritical decision not to become a fireman. Also, come to think of it, unless you believe that we shouldn't have a military at all, military service is dangerous and grueling even in peacetime, so by your willingness to allow others to shoulder the burden, you must have at least considered joining the service. Tell us why you didn't. Also, while we're at it, the men and women of the United States Coast Guard are bravely rescuing stranded sailors while you're warm and snug in your home, so tell us of those deliberations too. They're relevant to your public discourse on that issue. You know, being an air traffic controller is a high-stress occupation. Many of those who are out there keeping our skies safe suffer from ulcers, hypertension, and other ailments. Why aren't you joining them? Tell us what led you to your decision to allow others to do this work you're unable or unwilling to do.
I can keep going all day. Or you can admit that there's absolutely nothing wrong with believing that certain work should be done, supporting those who do it, yet not personally joining them.
In answer to your on-topic question, I did inquire re joining the military, but was not accepted due to either their lack of interest or a clear ineligibility. Now I'm too old, though they keep raising the maximum age, just not fast enough.
Enjoy your vacation.
The most amusing thing I find about conservative commentators like VOR is how much they stamp their feet demanding to be taken seriously and that their questions MUST be answered etc etc where if a liberal where to do the same on a conservative blog they would simply have their post deleted and their IP banned.
Ah, freedom of speech, truly a liberal value if ever there was one, and IMHO, one of the few freedoms worth fighting for. Of course, freedoms of any sort have virtually nothing to do with this dirty insane little war that the Yellow Elephants love to bang on about, so even though I did my 4 years as an armoured recon section commander, I sure as hell won't be re-upping anytime soon.
And when my nephews and nieces ask me what I did during the war of terror, I will proudly respond:
"I opposed it with every fibre of my being and called those lying scumbags who said it was anything other than a dirty little war for oil and power for the lieing sacks of shit they were"
the Bottom line on this guy..
Extreme positions require extreme commitment.
Warfare should only be defensive and only a last resort when all other diplomatic avenues have been exausted.
Waging agressive warfare, such as Anthony Mantova has advocated is regarded as a crime against humanity by The United Nations.
Its one of the main reasons why we hung those Nazis at Nuremberg , they waged agressive wars.
If Mantova advocates invading a country that has not attacked the United States based on speculation he is embracing the most extreme position that one can take.
In order to show that he is not engaging in empty demogougery he needs to put himself on the line.
Exteme positions require extreme commitment
It is not an extreme position to want good law enforcment in my community .
It is not an extreme position to want adequate fire protection for my town.
It is not an extreme position to want well trained competent and qualified air traffic controllers working at my local airport.
I would think every responsible citizen would want those things
None of these things is is an extreme postion. On the contrary , they are neccessary for our communities to function properly.
The desire to wage aggressive warfare such as Mantova has expressed warfare is an extreme position ,the most extreme position one can take.
That Mantova would advocate this aggressive warfare position and then flatly refuse to participate in the bloodletting makes him in my opinion, the epitome' of moral and physical cowardice. Hardly leadership material
That is why I had to call him out
And many thanks from all real Americans to Mr. Rob Ash for doing so.
I apologize for my prolonged absence, but I've been decompressing after a very fun but not very relaxing vacation. I hope you all are well.
karl:
In answer to your on-topic question, I did inquire re joining the military, but was not accepted due to either their lack of interest or a clear ineligibility. Now I'm too old, though they keep raising the maximum age, just not fast enough.
Regarding the boldface portion, I'm afraid you cannot get out of answering my questions by pleading irrelevance. You've already conceded that the policeman analogy is correct, and by extension so are the firefighter, Coast Guardsman, and air traffic controller analogies. You can throw in "paramedic" as well, and I'm sure I could think of others. So tell me, please, exactly what your thought processes were in rejecting all of the above professions. After all, it's relevant to the debate... or so says you.
el bizarro:
The most amusing thing I find about conservative commentators like VOR is how much they stamp their feet demanding to be taken seriously
Certainly not the most amusing thing, but an amusing thing I find about liberal commentators like yourself is how they insist on mischaracterizing their opponents to maintain their delusion that they're winning. If you can cite one single instance in which I was petulantly stamping my feet demanding to be taken seriously, I'll PayPal you a ten-spot.
and that their questions MUST be answered etc etc where if a liberal where to do the same on a conservative blog they would simply have their post deleted and their IP banned.
I'm not a conservative blog. I'm me, and trying to escape my arguments by saying "elsewhere we'd be banned" is just as fallacious as everything else that's been tossed my way.
Ah, freedom of speech, truly a liberal value if ever there was one
Of course. Because there is no well-trafficked liberal site that censors opposing opinions. None at all. So what do you want on your tombstone?
Of course, freedoms of any sort have virtually nothing to do with this dirty insane little war that the Yellow Elephants love to bang on about
Yeah, that whole "freedom to vote" thing that the Iraqis (and Afghans) now enjoy is complete crap, right? I mean, the Iraqis now have a Constitution enshrining a whole lot of civil liberties, but that has nothing to do with freedom.
so even though I did my 4 years as an armoured recon section commander, I sure as hell won't be re-upping anytime soon.
Which is, of course, your right. Thank you for your service.
"I opposed it with every fibre of my being and called those lying scumbags who said it was anything other than a dirty little war for oil and power for the lieing [sic] sacks of shit they were"
War for oil, war for oil, I am so sick of hearing people call this a war for oil. How much of the Iraqi (or Kuwaiti) oil did we steal? Does anybody doubt that the United States would have the military might to take every last wellhead in Iraq? Then why hasn't Chimpy McBushitler simply seized oil on the grounds of paying for the "liberation?"
Tell me, exactly what lies are you referring to? I'd be eager to hear your answer. (By the way, be careful if your answer is, "The lie was that Iraq had WMDs"... it's a trap!)
robash141:
the Bottom line on this guy.. Extreme positions require extreme commitment.
I agree.
Warfare should only be defensive
I do not agree. Suppose you're walking down the street and you see a woman being raped. Do you have the right to use force against her rapist? Or must the use of force be defensive only? If you're including "the defense of others" in your acceptable criteria for defensive use of force, then consider Saddam's oppressed people. If your answer is that warfare was not justified to remove a domestic tyrant, then please tell me what should have been done about Hitler if he'd never invaded Czechoslovakia or Poland but had simply remained within the borders of Germany, Austria, and Sudeten Czechoslovakia and started implementing the Final Solution.
and only a last resort when all other diplomatic avenues have been exausted.
I agree.
Waging agressive warfare, such as Anthony Mantova has advocated is regarded as a crime against humanity by The United Nations.
The invasion of Iraq was fully legal by United Nations resolutions. See here for proof.
Its one of the main reasons why we hung those Nazis at Nuremberg , they waged agressive wars.
An outcome which somehow never affects the victors. The War in Iraq was certainly more justifiable than the Spanish-American War or the Mexican War of 1846. Were those aggressive wars as well? Should Polk and McKinley be postumously condemned?
If Mantova advocates invading a country that has not attacked the United States
What do you call it when the antiaircraft fire of a state targets the aircraft of another state which are engaged in lawful patrols of a United Nations-mandated no-fly zone? Me, personally, I call it an attack.
What do you call it when the sovereign head of a state starts a conspiracy to assassinate the former head of another state? I call that too an attack... and the plotter isn't let off the hook just because the plot didn't succeed.
It is not an extreme position to want good law enforcment in my community .
It is not an extreme position to want adequate fire protection for my town. It is not an extreme position to want well trained competent and qualified air traffic controllers working at my local airport.
The extremity (or lack thereof) of an argument has nothing to do with its validity. It's amusing to see how you've narrowed your allegedly general principle. First, it was that you cannot advocate putting people in harm's way to fight and die without having served in that capacity yourself. Then it was that you only had to consider service. Now you have to consider service only if you advocate putting people in harm's way and your position is extreme. (I can't help but recall the sports punks from Harold & Kumar Go To White Castle.) Tell me, what's "extreme"? 40% support? 30%? If 80% of the American public supports sending troops to war, isn't opposition to the war really the extreme position?
That Mantova would advocate this aggressive warfare position and then flatly refuse to participate in the bloodletting makes him in my opinion, the epitome' of moral and physical cowardice.
Blah blah blah, ad hominem ad nauseam.
All VOR has to offer is to play pathetic little word games.
He obviously has a lot more leisure time than he has balls.
If this is the vanguard of patriotic youth then America really is in trouble
And please no more World War II analogies.They make you look even more cowardly .
Every able bodied man of My Grandfathers generation served in the military. "The Greatest Generation" didn't sit around making excuses like punk Mantova..
All VOR has to offer is to play pathetic little word games.
While all you have to offer is a pathetically transparent attempt to change the subject.
He obviously has a lot more leisure time than he has balls.
First of all, I hate to break this to you, buddy, but it really doesn't take much time to squash your feeble attempts at dialectic like a bug. Second of all, is it your contention that every civilian lacks balls, or just the ones that disagree with you?
If this is the vanguard of patriotic youth then America really is in trouble
Wow. I'm blushing. It's been a long time since anybody has identified me with "youth." Thank you!
And please no more World War II analogies.
Actually, that was a hypothetical, not an analogy. There's a difference you know. And fine, if you don't like the World War II association, I'll make it completely hypothetical. The dictator of the fictional country Someplacia begins a systematic program of executing every Jew and Catholic within his borders. Camps are set up, poison is manufactured, the chimneys of the crematoria start billowing. All attempts at getting the dictator to stop this mass murder using diplomacy fail. So tell me, would the free nations of the world be justified in using force to depose this dictator and put a stop to his campaign of genocide?
They make you look even more cowardly.
I'm sure I look cowardly to you, but honestly I don't put too much stock in your perceptiveness.
Every able bodied man of My Grandfathers generation served in the military.
And 290,000 of them never came back, either. How wonderful it is that our nation's military has improved to the point where we can fight and win wars without stripping our nation bare of able-bodied men, and what a blessing that we can fight and win wars at 1% of the tragic human cost!
"The Greatest Generation" didn't sit around making excuses like punk Mantova..
Got news for you, hot shot. The Greatest Generation didn't like it when any able-bodied man didn't serve, not just those who supported the war... in fact, they had the greatest of contempt for those who opposed it. In fact, any person who'd dared to pipe up to say that the war was a mistake, that Germany never attacked us, that the President lied us into war, that Pearl Harbor was MIHOP or LIHOP, would have certainly gotten a full set of contusions by a crowd of the nearest GIs. So perhaps you're the one who should rethink the World War II analogies.
Here's some more "pathetic little word games" for you:
From 1991 to 2003, military aircraft of the United States and United Kingdom patrolled the skies over "no-fly zones" established in Iraq pursuant to Security Council Resolutions 678 and 688. Iraqi troops acting under the authority of Saddam Hussein repeatedly shot at them, thank God never managing to down one. Was that or was that not an act of war?
George H. W. Bush visited Kuwait City in April 1991. While he was there, a plot to kill him using a car bomb was foiled. After an investigation, it was determined that Iraqi intelligence was behind the plot. Was that or was that not an act of war?
United Nations Security Council Resolution 687, the ceasefire that ended the Gulf War, demanded that Iraq "unconditionally accept the destruction, removal, or rendering harmless, under international supervision" of his biological and chemical warheads, and his medium-range or longer ballistic missiles. Do you believe that Iraq's compliance with this condition of the ceasefire was truly "unconditional"? If so, you disagree with a unanimous Security Council, which found in Resolution 1441 that "Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687." Is materially breaching the terms of a ceasefire an act of war, or is it not?
Do you (or anyone on this board) have answers to these questions? Or do you really have nothing stronger than "oh yeah? well, you should be in the army!" to reply with?
George H. W. Bush visited Kuwait City in April 1991
Sorry. I meant 1993, of course.
I can't imagine why You're wasting so much time and energy defending a lump like Mantova. He's already shown that he wouldn't stand up for you.
I can't imagine why You're wasting so much time and energy defending a lump like Mantova.
Once again, this doesn't really consume much time nor energy. I've been in tough debates before. I've taken on opponents who made me struggle to find the weak points in their arguments and who made me scramble to defend my own. Now that takes time and energy... and it's worth every second and every joule, since that's how one improves. The only way to shore up one's own arguments is to face a challenging opponent who will find the weaknesses. And occasionally, you get the rare but valuable reward of convincing somebody of the validity of your position... or of being convinced of the validity of somebody else's position.
This is entertainment of a different nature. Your arguments are no challenge to swat aside, and you aren't equipped to help me find any weaknesses in mine. It doesn't take a lot of effort to shoot fish in a barrel.
He's already shown that he wouldn't stand up for you.
How sad for you that you think that using armed force is the only way to "stand up" for somebody.
lol this guy reminds me of the old X-Men comic book villan "The Blob"
And i don't just refer to less than chisled manly physiques .
He alo has a blobby debating style in which he tries to ooze around every assertion smother every argument in slime trails and attack from another angle.
Also he like the blob in those everything you throw at him bounces off his blubbery head.
Also the Marvel commics Blob had an obnoxious boor who assumed he was better than everone else ,, Very much like your typical college republican,
VOR You are henforth known on this blog by the much more fitting "Voice of Blob"
He alo has a blobby debating style in which he tries to ooze around every assertion smother every argument in slime trails and attack from another angle.
What assertion? What assertions have you made other than "lol you're a coward"? What arguments have you made? All you have in your arsenal is ad hominem... and you're not even very good at that. Your insults are more appropriate to a kindergarten playground than to a battle of wits. I mean, c'mon, dude, "The Blob?" Could you be any more childish?
I asked you three rather simple questions. Each called for an answer of "yes" or "no". You haven't answered any of them. You're projecting your own avoidance of debate onto me, which is understandable but doesn't make it any less sad.
By the way, "comics" and "henceforth" are spelled as you see them here.
VOR You are henforth known on this blog by the much more fitting "Voice of Blob"
I know you are, but what am I? Listen, if you'd rather talk to somebody whose skill at making cutting insults approaches your own, I can give my 6-year-old nephew a call... although I think he outgrew name-calling a couple of years ago.
In your case I would be making an "ad blobinem" attack.
You just stated in one of your recent posts that you were just playing little rhetorical word games for your own amusement.
But Blobby says a "serious debate"
First you squish one way and then when you encounter resistance. you squish the other way ,whichever is most convienient for you just like your blobby namesake
If this is all just fun and games then whats wrong with a little fun at your expense. Who knew, Blobs had such thin skin
Besides given your spineless attitudes about military service and the fact you've advocatted death and destruction of people who haven't harmed you then You've certainly proven yourself worthy of ridicule.
So get used to it, there is more coming your way.
In your case I would be making an "ad blobinem" attack.
Ha ha! Truly, sir, you are a shining wit.
Whoops, I just made a Spoonerism.
You just stated in one of your recent posts that you were just playing little rhetorical word games for your own amusement.
Uh, no, I'm afraid I didn't. I am here for my amusement, this is true. Nobody would be more pleasantly surprised than I if I actually encountered serious debate here, but I don't expect this. This doesn't make my arguments "little rhetorical word games", though. For example, the three questions I asked, three yes-or-no questions, are about as concrete as they can be. You still haven't answered, of course... and then you accuse me of slipping past debate.
First you squish one way and then when you encounter resistance. you squish the other way
If you can find me one single argument on this thread that I have ducked or dodged, I'll give you a cookie. But of course you cannot. What I'm wondering is whether you actually believe that I'm ducking debate, or whether you're just at a loss for any rebuttal. If the latter, you're merely pathetic, but if the former, you're actually delusional and I'd advise you to seek competent psychiatric care.
If this is all just fun and games then whats wrong with a little fun at your expense.
Nothing's wrong with it, it's just a little disappointing that the best my opposition can muster is kindergarten name-calling. It's like showing up to play a basketball game and finding out that your opponents are five-year-old girls with cerebral palsy and wheelchairs. Sure, it means you score an easy victory, but it's not very satisfying. What makes it doubly unsatisfying is that not only is hurling insults the best you can do, they're not even particularly creative insults. There is some fun to be had in parrying one's opponent's cutting insults and replying in kind, but when all the opponent has is "LOL BLOB", even a flame war becomes dull and dissatisfying.
Who knew, Blobs had such thin skin
Got a pen? And some paper? Good. Start making up a list of your delusions; it'll be most helpful to present to the pshrink if you do, indeed, seek the help you so obviously need. When you're done, add "I have gotten under VoR's skin" to the list. You are simply incapable of irritating me any more than a little mouse is capable of irritating a Tyrannosaurus Rex.
Besides given your spineless attitudes about military service
...and your spineless attitudes (sic) about police service, firefighting, coast Guardsmanship, etc...
and the fact you've advocatted death and destruction of people who haven't harmed you
Do you have any idea how many Germans and Japanese that had never harmed us were killed by Americans in World War II? Is it your position that a war is only justified if there is no collateral damage? Why am I bothering to ask you a question which you of course will not answer?
You've certainly proven yourself worthy of ridicule.
Considering the source of this remark, I will cheerfully accept it as a compliment. Being ridiculed by the ridiculous is more of a badge of honor than a shame.
So get used to it, there is more coming your way.
Ooh, I'm all a-quiver.
Place your bets, folks, place your bets! Will the next reply by robash141 be:
A) A thoughtful, insightful, well-reasoned critique of my position, including answers to my questions and rebuttals to my arguments?
--or--
B) A semantically-null, poorly-written, semi-hysterical hodgepodge of playground insults, projection, and delusion?
My money's on B. Let us see what the future will bring.
By the way, robash, you are getting pretty consistently -- what's the word the kids use these days? -- ah yes. You are getting pretty consistently PWNED. Badly, too... wouldn't surprise me if you had bruises. Hurry back!
Voice of Blob
Semi- Juvenile insults are quite appropriate you've obviously shown yourself to be something less than a man.
I don't owe blobs respect or civility
I have to hand it to you though You're as stubborn as a piece of silly putty stuck in the carpet.
You are not exactly like the comic book blob or the movie blob I think you really embody the worst qualities of both.
The evidence is pretty clear that you really are a lazy, spinless quivering blob who won't fight for a cause that you claim to believe. Your merely taking the path of least resistance
If you want to prove me wrong Maybe you should ooze on down to Ft.Lewis and tell some Rangers who are about to deploy that your making just as signifigant contribution to the war effort as them
Tell them you are every bit as heroic when you sit on your lazy blobby ass writing snarky emails.
I'd love to see how that goes over.
All this oozing you are doing about reasoned civil discussion is a blobby ruse to gain an unfair advantage
You want to play the game and and appoint yourself referee as well.
How convienient for you you allow yourself make take cheap shots make ridiculous laughable assertions, cite bad information with impunity.
While you want me to hold myself to sober lawyerly standards of a Supreme Court Justice.
I guess you believe there is one srules for people like me and a completely differant standard for squishy slimy invetabretes like yourself.
Most of your your so called argumentation is just self-serving cowardly partisan blather and does not deserve a response.
It mostly consists of, "stupid liberal ..you can't say that"
You should probably keep your little nephew out of this fracus
I don't know anything about him except that he's probably already more of a man than you. You should probably stay away from him completely , so you won't be a bad influence . Heres hope that he won't grow up to be a blob himself
PS I just wanted to correct a typo ..
In the previous post I meant to call Voice of Blob a "spineless blob" not a "spinless blob"
What a differance one letter can make
Semi- Juvenile insults are quite appropriate you've obviously shown yourself to be something less than a man.
No, semi-juvenile insults are appropriate given that you obviously are incapable of anything more sophisticated... although I wouldn't include the modifier "semi-". You're throwing pebbles and laughably claiming the only reason you're not throwing boulders is that the pebbles are more than enough... when everybody knows that the fact is that you just can't lift boulders.
I don't owe blobs respect or civility
A very interesting example of begging the question. The very criteria that you use for who doesn't deserve respect or civility is disrespectful and uncivil. You're a treasure.
I have to hand it to you though You're as stubborn as a piece of silly putty stuck in the carpet.
"Stubbornness" implies continuing to put forth effort. As stated previously, this isn't effort. This is play. This is what a cat does with a wounded mouse; I suppose probably the same evolutionary urges that lead the cat to play with the mouse lead me to play with you.
You are not exactly like the comic book blob or the movie blob I think you really embody the worst qualities of both.
I know you do, but what do I?
The evidence is pretty clear that you really are a lazy, spinless quivering blob who won't fight for a cause that you claim to believe.
Really? Please provide this "evidence". Please provide evidence which wouldn't also make lazy, spinless [sic], quivering blobs of those who believe in teh cause of fighting crime but do not join the police force. Or don't provide any evidence, just continue to ignore the analogy in the futile hope that you're not looking ridiculous.
Your merely taking the path of least resistance
My merely taking the path of least resistance? What about my taking the path of least resistance?
Assuming you meant to write "you're", I'm afraid once again you are projecting your own flaws on to me. It is you who takes the path of least resistance. Rather than engage the arguments of your opponents, you just say "they never served, they're cowardly spineless blobs", thus avoiding having to actually come up with an answer to their arguments. That is taking the path of least resistance.
If you want to prove me wrong Maybe you should ooze on down to Ft.Lewis and tell some Rangers who are about to deploy that your making just as signifigant contribution to the war effort as them
Maybe you should learn the difference between "your" and "you're", but that's beside the point. I never, never, never said I was making just as significant of a contribution to the war effort as an Army Ranger. Nor do I make as significant of a contribution to the fight against crime as a cop on the beat. Say, do you put forth as much effort towards the ludicrously-named "peace movement" as, say, Susan Sarandon? 'Cuz if not, well, I guess that makes you a cowardly spineless blob!
Tell them you are every bit as heroic when you sit on your lazy blobby ass writing snarky emails.
No, I think I'll just tell them about this conversation, and enjoy a hearty laugh with them at your expense. And then buy them a round of beers, because those brave fighters deserve it.
Congratulations, though, on devising the Mother of All Strawmen.
All this oozing you are doing about reasoned civil discussion is a blobby ruse to gain an unfair advantage
Well, I will admit that my skills at logic and rhetoric may gain me an unfair advantage over you, in the same way that Mike Tyson would have an unfair advantage in a boxing match with an infant. Again, what I'm doing to you is cruel in a way, but it's a harmless form of cruelty that only hurts those who deserve it.
You want to play the game and and appoint yourself referee as well.
What in the world does that mean?
Look, I asked three questions earlier. I'll repeat them here for your benefit:
-----
From 1991 to 2003, military aircraft of the United States and United Kingdom patrolled the skies over "no-fly zones" established in Iraq pursuant to Security Council Resolutions 678 and 688. Iraqi troops acting under the authority of Saddam Hussein repeatedly shot at them, thank God never managing to down one. Was that or was that not an act of war?
George H. W. Bush visited Kuwait City in April 1993. While he was there, a plot to kill him using a car bomb was foiled. After an investigation, it was determined that Iraqi intelligence was behind the plot. Was that or was that not an act of war?
United Nations Security Council Resolution 687, the ceasefire that ended the Gulf War, demanded that Iraq "unconditionally accept the destruction, removal, or rendering harmless, under international supervision" of his biological and chemical warheads, and his medium-range or longer ballistic missiles. Do you believe that Iraq's compliance with this condition of the ceasefire was truly "unconditional"? If so, you disagree with a unanimous Security Council, which found in Resolution 1441 that "Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687." Is materially breaching the terms of a ceasefire an act of war, or is it not?
-----
Is there anything there that's "against the rules?" If somebody else were the referee, would he judge any of these questions to be "unfair"?
If you have any speck of intelligence, answer them. Or remove all doubt that you are a fool.
How convienient for you you allow yourself make take cheap shots make ridiculous laughable assertions, cite bad information with impunity.
If any of my assertions were ridiculously laughable, point them out and laugh at them. Use direct quotes, if possible. Try not to make up things like, "you think you're contributing as much to the war effort as an Army Ranger."
While you want me to hold myself to sober lawyerly standards of a Supreme Court Justice.
Oh, I wouldn't go that far... but holding yourself to a higher standard than a kindergartener would be nice. Unless, of course, you are a kindergartener, but I doubt it. If I had to guess, I'd put you at about fifteen or so, albeit an unfortunately immature fifteen.
I guess you believe there is one srules for people like me and a completely differant standard for squishy slimy invetabretes like yourself.
There is no such word as "invetabretes". If you were attempting to write "invertebrates"... congratulations, you have made three spelling errors in a single word! Huzzah to you, sir, truly your intellect is remarkable, if not unique.
Most of your your so called argumentation is just self-serving cowardly partisan blather and does not deserve a response.
Precisely. This is exactly what you and yours do when faced with your intellectual superiors with differing opinions. You try to make up some excuse why their arguments don't deserve a response. Then you shriek that bogus reason (in this case, the "chickenhawk" fallacy) with increasing shrillness the more you're called on it.
It mostly consists of, "stupid liberal ..you can't say that"
See above three questions. Answer if you can.
You should probably keep your little nephew out of this fracus
Fracas is spelled as you see it here. And you're right that I probably should... seeing as how he's spent most of his short life around smart people, he still harbors the illusion that the majority of people have some degree of intelligence. I'd like him to keep his youthful innocence for awhile longer before being exposed to the likes of you.
PS I just wanted to correct a typo .. In the previous post I meant to call Voice of Blob a "spineless blob" not a "spinless blob" What a differance one letter can make
Difference is spelled as you see it here. You might want to advise your parents to attend more schoolboard meetings to protest the extremely substandard education their child is getting.
Since your reply was so huffy
some of those pebbles Must have gotten into the folds of your blobby membrane and caused a lot of discomfort
Or Perhaps the discomfort came being confronted with your own cowardice as well as the cowardice of your blobby cohort Anthony Mantova.
I might be interested in a debate on the specific subject of why able bodied Military age supporters of the war and President Bush refuse to even consider military enlistment. I think it's because they are cowards
You flip out about it so badly because you know its true
It's clear that a blob such as yourself will never actually argue this subject in good faith .
The last thing you want is a fair hearing on this subject.
In blob like fashion you are going to do everything you can to gain an unfair advantage
You are going to use every squishy rhetorical trick at your disposal
to change the subject. and attack me from some other angle ,because Thats what hypocritical right wing blobs do.
There are think tanks where people are paid big salaries just to sit around and think up self serving right wing bullshit arguments about any subject . All a lazy blob like you would have to do is "cut" and "paste"
Even a blob with a gigantic overinflated opinion of his intellegence is capable of this.
So see Im not going to allow you the opportunity to ooze a bunch of squishy RNC boilerplate bullshit at me. I know a coward when i see one
.
And although you sure spend a lot of time whining about minor typos I guess tonight bitchy schoolmarm blob But I guess being a Bitchy schoolmarm blob would be easier than the being in 82nd Airborne.
I guess If you find minor typos so upsetting Then you would really get upset If Al Queda was shooting at you. In that case the blob would be in your pants.
To answer which on of your assertions was laughable , the answer is all of them.
You are a pretty rich source of humor
I'm laughing at you blob , not with you.
By the way Mr. Silly Putty just because you put on airs of superiority does not make you superior. You are still a squishy slimy blob
Just because you claim to be smart does not make you smart, If you were smart you would have bailed on this conversation a long time ago.
Just because you brag about your rhetorical skill Doesn't mean it's true. Good at being a slippery blob perhaps Besides I don't want to help some slimy military-shirking GOP blobby punk the opportunity to practice lawyering
You're not a cat playing with a mouse, You're not Winston Churchill or Rambo. Your just a pompus blobby Pathological
Who would never make it through the first week of basic training.
Just because you might some have mastrabatory fantasies about intellectuall world domination Does not Make you any less of a craven weak gelatinous fraud.
completely Since You will probably never amount to much as a role model for your little nephew maybe you can console yourself by trying to cheat him out of an inheritance someday.
If you are so blooby and unethical in one area of your life
If Aristophanes was alive today and He wrote about some pompus right wing feeb like Victor Davis Hanson he would characterize VDH as a "blob" or something equally flattering. Im sure a lot of the people in ancient Athens called him juvenile as well But people still talk about him to this day.
Besides I've already made my point repeatedly You just can't deal with it
As far as your three questions sounds like pretty flimsy pretexts for war.
especially the one about Bush Sr.
He wasn't even President at the time. The US Military is not the Bush family's private security force.
I don't need to revisit why it started anyway Its happening now I can't see why you wouldn't want to be a part of it
Blobby Im sure you wouldn't get all that bent if some foriegn power tried to bump off Jimmy Carter.
Sorry Blob I Know The reason you are so sideways about this subject and the reason that you seeem go out of your way to deamean disrespect fomer military people like myself who have actually risked their lives for our country is is that you believe you are superior. .
I know you would never make it in the military but at the same time you are jealous of the fact that we actually have some courage to back up what we say and you have none .
Ps I expect a reply with all the typos corrected by 1700 hours tommorow ( Thats 5 PM for those people who don't know military time.
Since your reply was so huffy
Again, you mistake amusement for huffiness.
some of those pebbles Must have gotten into the folds of your blobby membrane and caused a lot of discomfort
I'm afraid not. Keep trying.
(1) Or Perhaps the discomfort came being confronted with your own cowardice as well as the cowardice of your blobby cohort Anthony Mantova.
I'm having a difficult time seeing how you're perceiving discomfort. I hate to sound like a broken record, but I believe that once again you are projecting. Somewhere not very deep down, you know that you're being ruthlessly shredded, and it's making you uncomfortable... so you project that discomfort onto me. Sorry, Charlie, no sale. I'm enjoying myself. To be honest with you, I really would've thought I'd have gotten bored of tormenting you by now, but no.
I might be interested in a debate on the specific subject of why able bodied Military age supporters of the war and President Bush refuse to even consider military enlistment.
Okay, let's have a debate. You start:
I think it's because they are cowards
Uh, no, see, "debate" doesn't mean "state an opinion". "Debate" means "introduce evidence and make arguments." Its that what you consider to be "debate"? "I think it's because they are cowards?" That is your argument? Is that what you've been accusing me of ducking, Blob-like?
My turn.
In any society, there are the sheepdogs. The guardians. The fighters. The ones who put themselves on the line to protect others. These people are our policemen. They are our firefighters. They are our Coast and National Guardsmen. They are our paramedics, our 9/11 operators, our G-Men. And they are our soldiers, our sailors, our airmen, and our Marines.
Not everybody has what it takes to be a sheepdog. Not everybody can be a fireman, not everybody can be a cop, not everybody can be an F-18 pilot. And despite my opponent's frequent description of the opposition as "able-bodied", I'm sure that any sheepdog would agree that an able body is the least requirement to join their ranks. It takes a certain something inside, something not many people have.
We live inside a fortress of safety provided by those sheepdogs, and that fortress protects many things. For example, it protects the freedom to worship as you'd like without persecution, a freedom not enjoyed by those who live in Muslim countries. It protects the freedom of women to drive cars, dress as they'd like, and participate in the political process, a freedom frequently denied outside that fortress. And it protects the freedom to express oneself. Anybody can march down the street holding a sign that says "BUSH=HITLER", and anybody else can march down the street holding a sign that says "THE WAR IN IRAQ WAS LEGALLY, MORALLY, AND ETHICALLY JUSTIFIED." Everybody has these freedoms regardless of whether one is a sheepdog or not. If failure to join the military is an act of cowardice, then everybody who does not join the military is a coward, not just those who hold certain political views.
Would you care to present your rebuttal?
(2) You flip out about it so badly because you know its true
In the first place, I haven't flipped out, badly or otherwise, and in the second place, merely saying "it's true", without any evidence, is at least as strong as any other argument you've come up with.
(3) It's clear that a blob such as yourself will never actually argue this subject in good faith .
What have I said that is not in good faith?
The last thing you want is a fair hearing on this subject.
It's the first thing I want, it's the last thing I expect from the likes of you.
In blob like fashion you are going to do everything you can to gain an unfair advantage
Again, if you consider rational argument an "unfair advantage", I plead guilty.
You are going to use every squishy rhetorical trick at your disposal to change the subject.
How have I changed the subject?
and attack me from some other angle
You mean, if you try to argue that the war is wrong, I'll switch angles and try to accuse you of some sort of personal failing?
(4) because Thats what hypocritical right wing blobs do.
Well, if I see one, I'll be sure to let him know.
There are think tanks where people are paid big salaries just to sit around and think up self serving right wing bullshit arguments about any subject . All a lazy blob like you would have to do is "cut" and "paste"
Every single word I've typed has been my own. And once again you are guilty of the offense of which you accuse me: you try to change the subject. At first, you ignore my arguments because I'm a coward. Then, you ignore my arguments because I'm using cheap rhetorical tricks. Now you're ignoring my arguments because they're not my own. All a series of increasingly-desperate ploys to avoid having to actually face my arguments.
Not only are my arguments all my own, I don't even use a spellchecker. I don't need one. You do.
(5) Even a blob with a gigantic overinflated opinion of his intellegence is capable of this.
Now now, let's be fair... I don't have a gigantic opinion of my own intelligence in general. I have a gigantic opinion of my own intelligence when compared with yours. An opinion which, I believe, is fully justified by the evidence.
(6) So see Im not going to allow you the opportunity to ooze a bunch of squishy RNC boilerplate bullshit at me. I know a coward when i see one.
You've never seen me. Apparently your definition of "coward" is "somebody who disagrees with me who also happens to be a civilian." A most convenient tautological definition; it allows you to avoid confronting anybody who disagrees with you, except for a soldier, and I'm sure you'd come up with some reason to duck his arguments as well.
(7,8) And although you sure spend a lot of time whining about minor typos I guess tonight bitchy schoolmarm blob But I guess being a Bitchy schoolmarm blob would be easier than the being in 82nd Airborne.
Again, you really are under the misapprehension that this takes "a lot of time". My words come out as fast as I can type them, and I can type pretty darned fast. It's not like I have to take time to think in order to shut you down. And of course being a bitchy schoolmarm blob would be easier than being in the 82nd Airborne; just about anything would be easier than being in the 82nd Airborne.
(9)I guess If you find minor typos so upsetting Then you would really get upset If Al Queda was shooting at you. In that case the blob would be in your pants.
Why is it that you continue to think I'm upset? To continue with your potty humor motif, if you shat your pants and saw a crowd pointing and laughing at you, would you think that they were upset? That is, essentially, what is happening here. I'm laughing at the repeated crap you keep spewing from your uncontrollable sphincter.
To answer which on of your assertions was laughable , the answer is all of them.
Oh, thank you for the specifics. And you're a big fat doody-head.
You are a pretty rich source of humor
I'm laughing at you blob , not with you.
It's mutual, my friend. Only in this case it makes you appear still more pathetic, as if the pants-shitter thought that he was in good shape and the crowd was laughable.
By the way Mr. Silly Putty just because you put on airs of superiority does not make you superior. You are still a squishy slimy blob
"Superior" is a comparative and thus demands a comparison... superior to what, and by what criteria? I am not superior to, say, Alex Kozinski when it comes to knowledge of the law. I am not superior to, say, Alton Brown when it comes to knowledge of cooling. I am not superior to, say, Bill Gates when it comes to net worth. I am, however, superior to you, and in virtually every way imaginable. I'm superior to you in general knowledge, in critical thinking, in logical analysis, in making cutting insults, and I'd wager in income and good looks as well. Putting on airs does not make me superior to you. But I am superior to you nonetheless.
(10) Just because you claim to be smart does not make you smart, If you were smart you would have bailed on this conversation a long time ago.
No, claiming to be smart does not make me smart, but I am smart nonetheless. Smarter than you, without a doubt. I'd wager my life against a nickel on the proposition. Also, I'm curious to know why an intelligent person would not have continued this conversation with you. Do most smart people flee because they're incapable of putting up with your blinding idiocy?
Just because you brag about your rhetorical skill Doesn't mean it's true.
No, bragging about my rhetorical skill does not mean it's strong, but it's strong nonetheless.
Good at being a slippery blob perhaps Besides I don't want to help some slimy military-shirking GOP blobby punk the opportunity to practice lawyering
Unfortunately for you, refusing the opportunity to debate doesn't mean you've won the debate. It means you've lost it.
(11) You're not a cat playing with a mouse, You're not Winston Churchill or Rambo. Your just a pompus blobby Pathological
Who would never make it through the first week of basic training.
If I'd never make it through the first week of basic training, why are you insisting that I enlist? Do you want the United States government to spend the money to induct me, equip me, fly me somewhere for basic training, only to wash out within a week? What would be the point of that?
(12) Just because you might some have mastrabatory fantasies about intellectuall world domination Does not Make you any less of a craven weak gelatinous fraud.
And we're back to the name-calling. How do you know I'm a "fraud" if you won't give me the opportunity to practice my lawyering?
(13) If you are so blooby and unethical in one area of your life
What have I done that's unethical, pray tell?
If Aristophanes was alive today
What, did you just cover him in your high school Western Lit class?
and He wrote about some pompus right wing feeb like Victor Davis Hanson he would characterize VDH as a "blob" or something equally flattering.
In the first place, since Aristophanes was a playwright, not a political commentor, it's hard to see why he would've been writing on Victor Davis Hanson to begin with. In the second place, had Aristophanes wanted to insult somebody, I am certain that he could've come up with something a lot more witty and a lot more devastating than "blob".
And in the third place, this is quite possibly your most feeble argument yet. "If some long-dead figure wrote about some guy who isn't even part of this discussion, he'd call him a kindergarten insult?" Oh yeah? Well, if Moses were alive today he'd call Michael Moore a big fat doody head, so there!
Besides I've already made my point repeatedly You just can't deal with it
Your point, as near as I can tell, is "I say you're a coward, so there."
As far as your three questions sounds like pretty flimsy pretexts for war.
The questions called for answers of "yes" or "no". You're doing your own little slippery-eel impression there.
especially the one about Bush Sr.
He wasn't even President at the time. The US Military is not the Bush family's private security force.
True, and that's why the US Military was not responsible for protecting him during his trip. However, once the attempt is made, the question of punishment arises. In case you're curious, President Clinton responded to the attempt by launching airstrikes against Iraq, so clearly he considered it an act of war.
I don't need to revisit why it started anyway Its happening now I can't see why you wouldn't want to be a part of it
Amazing. There's a war going on, a war whose merits are bitterly contested, and all you care about is whether I, personally, choose to enlist? You've got a pretty narrow focus there, boy.
Blobby Im sure you wouldn't get all that bent if some foriegn power tried to bump off Jimmy Carter.
If some foreign power tried to bump off Jimmy Carter, I would demand that the United States make war with all of the power and fury at its disposal. Hell, if some foreign power tried to bump off Nancy Pelosi or William Jefferson, I'd make the same demand. When Country A attacks Country B, you have a casus belli. Attacking dignitaries of Country B acounts.
Sorry Blob I Know The reason you are so sideways about this subject and the reason that you seeem go out of your way to deamean disrespect fomer military people like myself who have actually risked their lives for our country is is that you believe you are superior. .
I do not believe your claim to have served in the armed forces, for the simple reason that I do not believe you are old enough.
I know you would never make it in the military but at the same time you are jealous of the fact that we actually have some courage to back up what we say and you have none .
I wouldn't describe my feelings towards the military as "jealousy". The words I'd use would be "pride", "gratitude", "appreciation", and "admiration".
Ps I expect a reply with all the typos corrected by 1700 hours tommorow ( Thats 5 PM for those people who don't know military time.
Genius, saying "1700 hours" is meaningless without giving a timezone. In any case, I've made it with plenty of time to spare. Here is your list of corrections. You really ought to consider improving yourself; in a purely written forum like this, sloppy writing is equivalent to stained and rumpled clothing on a public speaker.
(1) "Perhaps" should not be capitalized.
(2) "Its" should be "it's".
(3) There is an extraneous space before the period.
(4) "Thats" should be "that's".
(5) "Intellegence" should be "intelligence".
(6) "Im" should be "I'm".
(7) This sentence is ungrammatical.
(8) "than the being" should be "than being", and "82nd Airborne" should be "the 82nd Airborne".
(9) Too many capitalization errors to enumerate. The Arabic word commonly rendered as "Al-Qa'ida" has many accepted transliterations, but "Al Queda" is not one of them.
(10) "If" should not be capitalized, and the comma should be a semicolon. No more capitalization errors will be noted from this point; there are too many.
(11) "Pathological" is an adjective. This sentence is missing an object.
(12) "mastrabatory" should be "masturbatory".
(13) Sentence fragment. And "blooby" should be "blobby".
(14) "Thats" should be "that's"
thanks for the typo correction Blobby I have better things to do with my day and only a short allotment of time to argue with you It seems like the only productive work for which you are capable.
You basically admitted in your last post that you are too physically and mentally weak to make it through the first week of basic training.
I was in the real 82nd Airborne
so thats why I am so disgusted by condecension from the blobby likes of you
But by all means , keep dithering you just make yourself look even worse
Its pretty telling how you refer to US Military personel as dogs. Nothing shows your pride appreciation gratiude and admiration like calling people sub-human
Since you think they are dogs i guess you think you should just. take them to the pound and have them euthanized too if they don't behave.
Sub human dogs I guess that makes it easy to show you are a macho blob and cheerlead them off to war on any flimsy pretex or even to defend the life some two-bit grafter like William Jefferson
You basically admitted in your last post that you are too physically and mentally weak to make it through the first week of basic training.
No, I accepted your assumption that I wouldn't make it through the first week of Basic. I'm not saying whether your assumption is accurate or not. But if it were accurate, why on Earth would you insist that I enlist?
I was in the real 82nd Airborne
I think you're a liar. I would expect a real Airborne veteran to have a much better honed mind. I believe you are a high school kid.
Its pretty telling how you refer to US Military personel as dogs.
Way to comprehend what you're reading, Captain Context!
If you believe that I am misrepresenting myself when I tell you that I am a former paratrooper who served in the eighty-second Airborne then you should write a letter to the Eureka Reporter , my local newspaper (the one in which I wrote the op-ed about Mantova The editor is Glenn Franco Simmons , a conservative Republican who Might be sympathetic to some of your ideas The email address is
editor@eurekareporter.com .
Just be sure to use your real name Glenn Franco Simmons is very particular about people using their real names
He once turned a guy in to the cops for writing letters under an assumed name.. Maybe you can find Anthony Mantova and pull him out of his spider hole and he can sign your letter too.
No. I did not take you out of context. I, unfortunately for you, understood you just fine.
After all the empty puffery self serving rationalizations . partisan blather and numerous attempt to divert the subject you finally spoke the truth. You compared US military personnel to dogs. It really explains your cowardly evasive stance regarding military service
Its easy to advocate sending soldiers off to fight and die for some ideological humbug when you think of them as less than human.
And if you think of the people on our side as less than human what must you think of the middle easterners. You would have to regard them as some lower form of life than dogs
It’s easy to dismiss innocent civilian death as collateral damage if you think of them as sub-human
The reason you don’t want to fight is because you believe that war is supposed to be fought by the untermenchen .
, with such an attitude , I’m sure you would have fit in well during the Third Reich , for a while at least.
I am taking your advice about careful proofreading. That speaker with a rumpled suit was a good metaphor All those typos detract from my message . So thanks for the help in that regard
However , the flaws. You’ve cannot be corrected with a spell checker
You’ve really bared your rancid blobby soul during this conversation,
You’ve answered my questions an now I know everything I need to know about you
And now this conversation is over , I’ll let you have the last word I’m sure that’s what you wanted all along. You can have it But you’ll have to address your parting rant to posterity because I’m not going to bother to read your reply.
Remember this , a brave man dies only once a coward dies many times
No. I did not take you out of context.
Yes, you did. No sane person -- a category in which you are not necessarily included -- would read what I wrote and infer that I view soldiers as subhuman. Your assertion makes as much sense as if I'd called soldiers "heroes" and you accused me of calling them sandwiches.
I win, by the way. I'm going to post this thread to a few conservative message boards so others can come here and enjoy the über pwnage. Even if you won't read this, others will. And if you are reading this... liar liar pants on fire, hang 'em on a telephone wire.
What, exactly, do you 'win'? And I find it ironic that conservatives would consider it 'uber pwnage' for a cowardly military service avoider - like yourself - who nonetheless advocates for military action to support W's failed policies - like yourself - to have insulted and denigrated actual veterans and those who have the balls to serve.
But then, the typical Yellow Elephant lives to ridicule those that are truly Patriotic, as most of them are spineless sissies.
Like you, 'Voice of Reason.'
Robash:
I was in the real 82nd Airborne
Voice of rancor:
I think you're a liar. I would expect a real Airborne veteran to have a much better honed mind. I believe you are a high school kid.
Unlike the typical neocon, he has no need to lie. He did what he says - I know, I went to basic teraiing and AIT with him and we served together in Italy for a time.
Can someone tell me when Franklin Delano Roosevelt served in the military? How about Woodrow Wilson? Their lack of military experience did not stop them from leading the country during World War I and World War II. (And don't whine that FDR had polio. He did not get polio until years after World World I had ended.)
How about Abraham Lincoln? He served during the Black Hawk War, but admitted he spent most of his time swatting mosquitoes. Should that have disqualified Lincoln from leading the Union during the civil war?
Finally, what about that draft dodger Bill Clinton? He deployed our military more than 40 times (without UN or congressional approval). I don't recall you wimps complaining during the 1990s.
Cpl. Kevin Groenhagen, USMC, 1982-86
www.sinsofthehusband.com
THE CHICKENHAWK SMEAR
I
n July 2007, Clinton sycophant Joe Conason attacked Republican presi-dential candidates Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney for their lack of military experience. According to Conason, the GOP “seems to prefer its hawks to be of the chicken variety.”
“Born in 1944, young Rudy was highly eligible for military service when he reached his 20s during the Vietnam War,” Conason wrote. “He did not volunteer for combat—as Kerry did—and instead found a highly creative way to dodge the draft.”
Turns out that Giuliani received a student deferment and then, later, “drew a high lottery number and was never drafted.”
Romney also received a student deferment. Later, he received a deferment as a missionary for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.
“But it is hard to blame Romney for choosing missionary work over mili-tary service,” Conason wrote. “After all, the Mormons didn’t send him to proselytize in the slums of the Philippines, Guatemala or Kenya. They sent him to France.”
Conason’s assertion that Kerry volunteered for combat is contradicted by Kerry’s own words. “I didn’t really want to get involved in the war,” Kerry said in a little-noticed contribution to a book of Vietnam reminiscences pub-lished in 1986. “When I signed up for the swift boats, they had very little to do with the war. They were engaged in coastal patrolling and that’s what I thought I was going to be doing.”
According to the Boston Globe, “But two weeks after he arrived in Viet-nam, the swift boat mission changed—and Kerry went from having one of the safest assignments in the escalating conflict to one of the most dangerous. Under the newly launched Operation SEALORD, swift boats were charged with patrolling the narrow waterways of the Mekong Delta to draw fire and smoke out the enemy. Cruising inlets and coves and canals, swift boats were especially vulnerable targets.”
Kerry was assigned duty that he did not volunteer for, and it appears that he immediately began looking for a creative way to get out of Vietnam as soon as possible.
Oh, and Kerry did unsuccessfully attempt to defer his military service for another year after he graduated from Yale. He wanted to continue his studies in France.
Incidentally, Conason’s biography makes no mention of his own military service.
As is the case with most smears offered by liberals, the chickenhawk smear is accompanied by a great deal of hypocrisy. The Constitution requires no military prerequisite before a man or woman can become president. Abra-ham Lincoln, who presided over the Civil War, served briefly during the Black Hawk War of 1832. However, he readily acknowledged that he spent more time swatting mosquitoes than fighting Indians. When is the last time you heard Lincoln characterized as a chickenhawk?
Democrat Woodrow Wilson did not serve in the military. During his re-election campaign in 1916, his campaign slogan was “He kept us out of the war.” A month after he began his second term, Wilson took America into World War I to make “the world safe for democracy.” Was Wilson a chick-enhawk? Apparently not.
While Franklin Delano Roosevelt did serve as this nation’s Assistant Sec-retary of the Navy, he never served a day in uniform. He could have served during World War I, which took place several years before he contracted po-lio, but he did not. Nevertheless, this did not preclude him from leading this country during most of World War II. It is clear that Roosevelt wanted to get involved in World Word II, yet no liberal would ever call Roosevelt a chick-enhawk.
Between Word War II and 1992, every president had served in the mili-tary. However, things changed with baby boomer Bill Clinton’s candidacy. Clinton had not served during the Vietnam War and, if he prevailed during the Democratic primary season, his general election opponent would be Re-publican George H.W. Bush, a man who had joined the U.S. Navy on his eighteenth birthday and had earned the Distinguished Flying Cross.
During the fall of 1991, the national press began asking questions about Clinton’s avoidance of the draft. George Stephanopoulos, a Clinton cam-paign senior adviser, noted in his memoirs that he urged Clinton to provide better, cleaner answers. “You would have thought I had called Clinton a draft dodger,” Stephanopoulos wrote. “Hillary spoke first, and she was incensed. ‘Bill’s not going to apologize for being against the Vietnam War!’ Ignited by her intensity, Clinton launched into a red-faced tirade against the war and said he’d rather lose the race than say it was right.”
Clinton had been telling the press and his own staff that he never received a deferment because he decided to take his chance in the lottery instead. That lie was exposed in February 1992 when ABC reporter Mark Halperin handed Stephanopoulos a copy of Clinton’s letter to Army Colonel Eugene Holmes.* Holmes was the director of the University of Arkansas Reserve Officers’ Training Corps program in 1969 when Clinton sought his help in avoiding the draft. Clinton had received his second draft notice (he claims he received the first too late while he was in England) and had an induction date of July 28, 1969. Holmes, after receiving pressure from Sen. William Fulbright, a Rhodes scholar and former president of the University of Arkansas, agreed to accept Clinton into the ROTC on July 17, 1969, with the understanding that Clinton would complete basic training the following summer. Clinton’s draft notice was nullified and his draft board reclassified him 1-D (reservist de-ferment) on August 7, 1969.
Having avoided the draft, Clinton returned to England for the second year of his Rhodes Scholarship program. While there, he met Father Richard McSorley, an antiwar Jesuit who had taken a sabbatical to visit peace groups throughout the world. Both Clinton and McSorley participated in an antiwar demonstration at the U.S. Embassy. The following day they marched back to the embassy and left white crosses to symbolize the deaths of Americans.
According to McSorley in his 1979 book Peace Eyes, Clinton was one of the organizers of the demonstration, which had the support of British peace organizations such as the British Peace Council, an arm of the KGB-backed World Peace Council.
On December 1, 1969, a lottery drawing—the first since 1942—was held at Selective Service National Headquarters in Washington, D.C. With the new lottery system, Clinton realized that the odds were now in his favor. Two days after the lottery drawing, he wrote his infamous letter to Holmes. “First, I want to thank you, not just for saving me from the draft, but for be-ing so kind and decent to me last summer, when I was as low as I have ever been,” Clinton wrote. “One thing which made the bond we struck in good faith somewhat palatable to me was my high regard for you personally. In retrospect, it seems that the admiration might not have been mutual had you known a little more about me, about my political beliefs and activities. At least you might have thought me more fit for the draft than for ROTC.”
“I decided to accept the draft in spite of my beliefs for one reason: to maintain my political viability within the system,” Clinton continued. “For years I have worked to prepare myself for a political life characterized by both practical political ability and concern for rapid social progress. It is a life I still feel compelled to try to lead.”
Clinton ended up not being drafted and not serving in the ROTC. Of course, supporters of George H.W. Bush pointed to Clinton’s letter to show that he had been lying about his avoidance of the draft, and that he had used dubious means to avoid military service. Fortunately for Clinton, a Vietnam War hero gave him a way out of the controversy.
Although he himself had “kept up his criticism of Mr. Clinton’s explanation of his draft record during the Vietnam War” during the Democratic primary season in 1992, Sen. Bob Kerrey of Nebraska, a Medal of Honor recipient, attacked Clinton’s GOP detractors when they issued the same criticism. “The condition of having a special draft status was not created by Bill Clinton,” Kerrey said. “It was created and later allowed by politicians like George [H.W.] Bush and his mentor, Richard Nixon…. God help us if, in 1992, the people who brought us the tragedy of Vietnam use it in a deceptive way to hold onto power.”
Of course, the only deception in the Clinton draft story came from Clinton Inc. That deception continued even after Clinton left the White House. In Living History, Hillary Clinton’s 2003 memoir, the current presidential candidate wrote, “I knew that Bill respected military service, that he would have served if he had been called and that he would also have gladly enlisted in World War II, a war whose purpose was crystal clear.” As we have seen, Clinton was called to serve—twice. He just failed to answer those calls.
Clinton’s maneuvering to avoid military service during the Vietnam War was far more creative and deceptive than anything Giuliani or Romney did. Yet there does not seem to be any record of Conason criticizing Clinton’s avoidance of the draft, let alone any examples of Conason calling Clinton a chickenhawk. As someone who deployed the troops more than 40 times during his presidency, Clinton certainly fit the definition of “chickenhawk” that was shared at the beginning of this chapter. Clinton deployed troops to, among other places, Haiti, the Persian Gulf, Somalia, Bosnia, Liberia, and Kosovo, but was never called a chickenhawk by his fellow liberals.* For example, when Al Franken published Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot in 1996, he included a chapter entitled “Operation Chickenhawk.” The fictional Vietnam War squad in the chapter was made up of Dan Quayle, Newt Gingrich, Rush Limbaugh, Pat Buchanan, Phil Gramm, Clarence Thomas, and George Will. Bill Clinton did not make the squad. Nor did Franken, who had a student deferment during Vietnam.
Clinton went on to defeat George H.W. Bush in 1992 and Bob Dole, another World War II veteran, in 1996. It appeared that a candidate’s military service was no longer an issue in presidential politics. In 2000, the chickenhawk epithet was used rarely against George W. Bush, who served in the Texas Air National Guard (TANG), and his running mate, Dick Cheney, who received student deferments and the ‘‘hardship’’ exemption (3-A) during Vietnam. Al Gore, the Democratic presidential candidate had served in Vietnam, but just for a few months as a military journalist. Gore’s vice presidential running mate, Joe Lieberman, like Cheney, received student deferments and the hardship exemption.
However, things changed in 2004 when Bush faced John Kerry, the junior senator from Massachusetts. Even after serving as the commander-in-chief of the armed forces for more than three years and leading those forces in wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, Bush’s 30-year-old military record suddenly became an issue.
Kerry had chastised Bob Kerrey 12 years earlier when Kerrey tried to make an issue out of Bill Clinton’s failure to serve in the military. On February 27, 1992, the day after Kerrey attacked Clinton in Atlanta, Kerry took to the Senate floor:
The race for the White House should be about leadership, and leadership re-quires that one help heal the wounds of Vietnam, not reopen them; that one help identify the positive things that we learned about ourselves and about our nation, not play to the divisions and differences of that crucible of our genera-tion.
We do not need to divide America over who served and how. I have person-ally always believed that many served in many different ways. Someone who was deeply against the war in 1969 or 1970 may well have served their coun-try with equal passion and patriotism by opposing the war as by fighting in it. Are we now, 20 years or 30 years later, to forget the difficulties of that time, of families that were literally torn apart, of brothers who ceased to talk to brothers, of fathers who disowned their sons, of people who felt compelled to leave the country and forget their own future and turn against the will of their own aspirations?
Are we now to descend, like latter-day Spiro Agnews, and play, as he did, to the worst instincts of divisiveness and reaction that still haunt America? Are we now going to create a new scarlet letter in the context of Vietnam?*
Certainly, those who went to Vietnam suffered greatly. I have argued for years, since I returned myself in 1969, that they do deserve special affection and gratitude for service. And, indeed, I think everything I have tried to do since then has been to fight for their rights and recognition.
But while those who served are owed special recognition, that recognition should not come at the expense of others; nor does it require that others be victimized or criticized or said to have settled for a lesser standard. To divide our party or our country over this issue today, in 1992, simply does not do justice to what all of us went through during that tragic and turbulent time.
Unfortunately, Kerry himself and his party—the “latter-day Spiro Agnews”—decided to divide the country over the Vietnam War in 2004.
Democratic National Committee chairman Terry McAuliffe appeared on Fox News on January 31 and said, “George Bush never showed up [for TANG duty]. He was AWOL from the Alabama National Guard. He didn’t fight in any battles and General Clark did. So I will put General Clark up against George Bush any day of the week.” McAuliffe repeated the charge on February 1: “I look forward to that debate when John Kerry, a war hero with a chest full of medals, is standing next to George Bush, a man who was AWOL in the Alabama National Guard. George Bush never served in our military and our country. He didn’t show up when he should have showed up.” Incidentally, McAuliffe never served a day in uniform.
Responding to the lies from McAuliffe and other Kerry allies, Bush on February 10 released his National Guard pay and retirement records. The documents indicated that Bush received credit for nine days of active duty between May 1972 and May 1973, the period that Democrats have cited as evidence that he failed to meet his military responsibilities. He left the National Guard with an honorable discharge eight months shy of the obligatory six years in 1973, to attend Harvard Business School.
Of course, the records were facts, and facts mean little to liberal Democrats. On February 12, Secretary of State Colin Powell appeared on Capitol Hill and had this exchange with Rep. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio:
BROWN: We count on you. The president may have been AWOL, the vice president said he had other priorities during Vietnam, other high administrative officials never served. You understand war. We absolutely count on you. And I think a lot of us wonder what happened between that “Post” interview and your statement the next day when you said the president made the right decision.
POWELL: First of all Mr. Brown, I won’t dignify your comments about the president, because you don’t know what you’re talking about. Second, let me get to the points you’re raising.
BROWN: I’m sorry. I don’t know what you mean, Mr. Secretary.
POWELL: You made reference to the president.
BROWN: I said he may have been AWOL.
POWELL: Mr. Brown, let’s not go there. Let’s just not go there in this hear-ing. If you want to have a political fight on this matter that is very controver-sial and I think is being dealt with by the White House, fine. Let’s not go there.
Brown’s online biography noted that he was born in 1952, but made no mention of military service. I called his office and was told that he, like Che-ney, received a student deferment. Apparently, he also had other priorities during Vietnam. Unfortunately, the people of Ohio awarded the demagogic Brown with a seat in the U.S. Senate in 2006.
On February 13, Bush appeared on Meet the Press and was asked how he was able to leave the National Guard eight months early. “Well, I was going to Harvard Business School and worked it out with the military,” Bush answered.
With the AWOL lie exposed, the liberal attack machine then turned to Bush’s early discharge from TANG. For example, the Kansas City Star’s Rhonda Chriss Lokeman on February 15, 2004 wrote, “While untold numbers of young men and women were losing their limbs and lives in Southeast Asia, Bush somehow ‘worked things out.’”
If Lokeman had bothered to consult a history book, she would have learned that no American men or women were losing their limbs and lives in Southeast Asia at the time Bush “worked things out” with the military. Bush was last paid for Guard duty on July 30, 1973. The last U.S. combat troops left Vietnam on March 29, 1973. The official halt of combat activity in Southeast Asia occurred on August 15, 1973, when the U.S. bombing of Cambodia ended. In other words, official combat activity in Southeast Asia ended before Bush began business school. (There is no record of Lokeman writing a similar column concerning how Clinton worked things out to avoid induction into the Army in July 1969. Nearly 10,000 U.S. servicemen were killed in action during that year.)
On April 28, Sen. Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey, a World War II veteran, delivered a speech on the floor of the Senate in which he attacked Kerry’s opponents. “The lead chickenhawk against Sen. Kerry [is] the vice president of the United States, Vice President Cheney,” Lautenberg said. “He was in Missouri this week claiming that Sen. Kerry was not up to the job of protecting this nation. What nerve. Where was Dick Cheney when that war was going on?”
According to CNN, “In a speech Monday at Westminster College in Fulton, Missouri, Cheney attacked Kerry’s votes in the Senate to cut weapons programs, his opposition to the 1991 Persian Gulf War and recent comments that the war on terror should not be thought of primarily as a military operation.”
Clearly, Cheney’s remarks were directed at Kerry’s votes, not his military service. But that fact did not stop Lautenberg from pointing to a poster with a drawing of a chicken in a military uniform defining a chickenhawk as “a per-son enthusiastic about war, provided someone else fights it.”
During the same month, Democratic Rep. Nancy Pelosi, the future Speaker of the House, said, “As far as we know, Senator Kerry got three Purple Hearts for risking his life in Vietnam and President Bush got a dental examination in Alabama.” Rep. Jim McDermott, D-Wash., speaking on the House floor, characterized Bush’s TANG service as “missing without action.”
When the Democratic National Convention took place in late July, Kerry, who in 1992 said, “The race for the White House should be about leadership, and leadership requires that one help heal the wounds of Vietnam, not reopen them,” put his Vietnam service front and center. He met up with his so-called “band of brothers,” 12 veterans of the Swift boats he captained in Vietnam and Jim Rassmann, a Green Beret he rescued from a river in the Mekong Delta, in Boston. Together they crossed the Boston Harbor aboard the LuLu E taxi ship, which had been adorned in red, white and blue. According to the Washington Post, “Everything about the day was orchestrated to stir memories of Kerry’s military service and his support from the men and women in uniform…. The unspoken message: Kerry served in combat, while George W. Bush served stateside in the National Guard.”
The following day, Kerry began his acceptance speech with the words, “I’m John Kerry, and I’m reporting for duty” and a salute. “And in this jour-ney,” Kerry said. “I am accompanied by an extraordinary band of brothers led by that American hero, a patriot called Max Cleland.” Cleland, of course, is the former senator from Georgia who lost three limbs in Vietnam. He had just introduced Kerry.
Kerry continued: “I know what kids go through when they are carrying an M-16 in a dangerous place and they can’t tell friend from foe. I know what they go through when they’re out on patrol at night and they don’t know what’s coming around the next bend. I know what it’s like to write letters home telling your family that everything’s all right when you’re just not sure that’s true.” Before concluding his speech, he threw in one more reference to Vietnam, just in case viewers missed the others: “I learned a lot about these values on that gunboat patrolling the Mekong Delta with Americans—you saw them—who came from places as different as Iowa, Oregon, Arkansas, Florida, California. No one cared where we went to school. No one cared about our race or our backgrounds. We were literally all in the same boat. We looked out, one for the other and we still do.”
On August 5, the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth (SBVT) aired their first television commercial. SBVT first went public with their opposition to Kerry the previous May. This first spot, “Any Questions,” questioned Kerry’s service in Vietnam. SBVT’s second commercial, “Sellout,” released on August 20, criticized Kerry’s testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. In addition, SBVT founder and spokesman John O’Neill and Jerome Corsi published the book Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry during August.
Five days after the second SBVT commercial aired, Cleland attempted to deliver a protest letter to Bush at his ranch in Crawford, Texas. The letter, signed by Daniel Inouye of Hawaii, Ernest “Fritz” Hollings of South Carolina, phony Vietnam veteran Tom Harkin of Iowa, Jack Reed of Rhode Island, Tom Carper of Delaware, and Jon Corzine and Frank Lautenberg, both of New Jersey, said “you owe a special duty” to condemn attacks on Kerry’s military service.
Of course, these same senators remained silent when members of their own party attacked Bush’s military service. And they remained silent as the attacks on Bush continued during the remainder of the campaign.
Ironically, SBVT’s criticism concerning Kerry’s testimony varied little from criticism offered by a former Secretary of the Navy six months earlier:
To be sure, Kerry deserves condemnation for his activities as the leader of Vietnam Veterans Against the War (VVAW). In the early 1970s, this small organization — never more than 7,000 veterans out of a potential pool of 9 million — became the darling of the anti-war movement and the liberal media. Its activities went far beyond simply criticizing the politics of the war to repeatedly and dishonestly misrepresenting the service of Vietnam veterans and the positive feelings most felt after serving.
Kerry’s own comments were filled with hyperbolic exaggerations that sought to make egregious acts seem commonplace. During a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing in 1971, he testified that fellow veterans had routinely “raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan.” With those words, he defamed a generation of honorable men. No matter how he spins it today, at a minimum, he owes them a full and complete apology.
The author of those words was James Webb, who was elected as a Democrat to the U.S. Senate in November 2006 after receiving endorsements from, amongst others, Max Cleland. It’s doubtful that Webb’s Democratic colleagues in the Senate have demanded an apology for his attack on Kerry. And Kerry certainly has not offered a full and complete apology to those he defamed in 1971.
As our troops continued to fight in Afghanistan and Iraq, the battle over service during the Vietnam War waged on. On September 8, 60 Minutes Wednesday aired its infamous piece on George W. Bush’s National Guard service. “60 Minutes has obtained government documents that indicate Mr. Bush may have received preferential treatment in the Guard after not fulfilling his commitments,” Dan Rather claimed.
Almost immediately, readers of Powerlineblog and other weblogs began questioning the authenticity of the documents. It appeared that the memos had been produced by a modern Microsoft Word application and not a circa 1970 typewriter.
“Based on what we now know, CBS News cannot prove that the documents are authentic, which is the only acceptable journalistic standard to justify using them in the report,” said a CBS statement issued on September 20. “We should not have used them.” CBS also announced that it was “commissioning an independent review of the process by which the report was prepared and broadcast to help determine what actions need to be taken.” According to the report, which was issued in January 2005, “The combination of a new 60 Minutes Wednesday management team, great deference given to a highly respected producer and the network’s news anchor, competitive pressures, and a zealous belief in the truth of the segment seem to have led many to disregard some fundamental journalistic principles.” Four CBS News employees, including three executives, were let go by the network for their role in preparing and reporting the discredited story about Bush’s National Guard service. Rather, who had hoped to take down Bush, instead stepped down as the anchor of CBS Evening News in March 2005.
One aspect of Rathergate overlooked by most in the media was Rather’s own military record. According to Bernard Goldberg in Bias, he called Rather in February 1996 to give the anchor a heads up on an opinion piece he had written for the Wall Street Journal. “I told him it was about a story that had run on his evening newcast a few days earlier,” said Goldberg, who was then a CBS News reporter and producer. “That it was about how the story was cynical and biased and loaded with cheap shots aimed at one of the candidates running for president. I also told him about how the supposedly objective news story was part of an ongoing problem at the networks.”
The anchor became angry. “Rather’s voice started quivering, and he told me how in his young days, he had signed up with the Marines—not once, but twice!” Goldberg wrote. However, Rather washed out of Marine boot camp and, thus, never earned the title “Marine.”* In other words, a “phony Marine” had dishonestly attacked Bush’s military service.
While Kerry and his allies in his party and the media were belittling Bush’s TANG service, those who were currently serving in uniform did not buy Kerry’s newfound respect for the military. In September 2004, an Army Times Publishing Co. survey of more 4,000 full-time and part-time troops found that 73 percent said they would vote for Bush, while just 18 percent said they would vote for Kerry.
In the end, Bush and Cheney prevailed in the 2004 election, Kerry returned to the Senate as Massachusetts’ junior senator, and Rather and his team of partisans lost their positions with CBS News. That should have put the chickenhawk smear to rest. However, it soon reemerged to be used against younger Republicans.
On July 27, 2007, Lawrence Korb of the Center for American Progress appeared before the House Armed Services Committee and argued that proponents of the surge in Iraq should call for a draft.** After Rep. Michael Turner, R-Ohio, questioned Korb’s argument, Think Progress, the blog operated by Center for American Progress, labeled Turner a “chickenhawk” for having the temerity to question Korb. “Turner is a classic ‘chickenhawk,’ a term used to refer to strident war proponents who have never personally experienced war,” wrote Faiz Shakir, Think Progress’ research director. “Korb, on the other hand, is a Navy captain who served in Vietnam.”
Think Progress included a link to the Wikipedia entry on Lawrence Korb. Interestingly, as of November 21, 2007, the word “Vietnam” did not appear at all on the page. The entry does note that Korb served on active duty from 1962 to 1966 as a naval flight officer and that he retired from the Naval Reserve with the rank of captain. Korb also outlined his military experiences in testimony before the Congressional Commission on Overseas Bases. “Finally, as a young naval flight officer,” Korb said, “my ‘homeport’ for my last year on active duty was on the Japanese Island of Okinawa.” However, he made no mention of serving in Vietnam. I contacted Korb via e-mail and asked about his service. “I was in Vietnam in 1965 and 1966,” he replied.
Korb apparently did not spend his entire last year of active duty on his “homeport” of Okinawa. However, it is also possible that Korb’s service in Vietnam was a bit less significant than Think Progress implied. Nevertheless, Think Progress suggested that a congressman who did not serve in the military had no right to question a man who served in uniform. Or, more exactly, Think Progress was arguing that a Republican congressman who did not serve in the military had no right to question a liberal man who served in uniform. After all, Think Progress was silent when Democrat Sherrod Brown was disrespectful towards Colin Powell. They also remained silent when Hillary Clinton suggested that General David Petraeus was a liar and their allies with MoveOn.org portrayed Petraeus as “General Betray Us.” In fact, Think Progress itself has questioned Petraeus’ motives and competency. For example, in an October 22, 2007 post, Satyam Khanna, a Think Progress research associate, wrote, “In the end, President Bush and Gen. Petraeus’s strategy has failed at its primary goal. Nevertheless, Petraeus wants to buy more time for his unsuccessful attempt to quell Iraq’s civil war.” Khanna, like Shakir, has not spent a day in the military.
Michael Scheuer, who headed the CIA’s bin Laden unit, addressed this dishonest tactic in Imperial Hubris: “The inference has an obvious twofold purpose—to implicitly denigrate the questioner by impugning his or her bravery or patriotism, and to explicitly suggest that if the questioner has not served in the military, he or she has no experience on which to base pertinent questions. It is appalling to see how well this despicable tactic works to put questioners on the defensive.” Scheuer also pointed out that it was “the decidedly unmilitary Abraham Lincoln who taught that eminent moral coward from West Point, George B. McCellan, that the path to victory lay in destroying the Army of Northern Virginia and not in capturing Richmond.”
Incidentally, Turner was born in 1960, making him a trailing-edge baby boomer. When Turner was in his late teens and twenties, the United States was not involved in any full-scale wars.* The same cannot be said about John Podesta, the president and CEO of the Center for American Progress. Podesta, born in 1949, was of draft age during the Vietnam War but, instead of serving in the military, he attended Knox College. Interestingly, just four days before the Turner-Korb exchange, Podesta penned an opinion piece for the Washington Post in which he noted that he served as President Clinton’s chief of staff when Clinton launched a war against Slobodan Milosevic in 1999. In April 1999, Podesta appeared on Meet the Press and explained that the Clinton administration had a contingency plan for using ground troops in “a combat force, rather than as peacekeepers.” It should also be noted that Podesta was the Clinton administration official who, on December 15, 1998, informed “congressional leaders that U.S. forces would launch an attack on Iraq the following day.” Podesta had become Clinton’s chief of staff just two months earlier, at a time when it was clear that the United States was headed towards a showdown with Iraq. He certainly knew at the time that he would have to be a proponent of the use of force against Iraq. Therefore, using his own think tank’s definition of chickenhawks, i.e., “strident war proponents who have never personally experienced war,” Podesta, like his former boss in the White House, is a classic chickenhawk.
Unfortunately, the chickenhawk smear is now being used against Republicans born after the baby boom. On July 13, 2007, Max Blumenthal, a Media Matters for America research fellow, attended the College Republican National Convention. “Like the current Republican leaders who skipped out on Vietnam, the GOP’s next generation would rather cheerlead from the sidelines for the war in Iraq while other, less privileged young men and women fight and die,” Blumenthal said. “Along with videographer Thomas Shomaker, I captured a vivid portrait of the hypocritical mentality of the next generation of Republican leaders.”
According to Blumenthal, those who support the war in Iraq, yet do not serve in the military, are hypocrites. This charge has also been leveled at President Bush’s daughters. (Incidentally, no one demanded that Chelsea Clinton, then 19, serve in her father’s war in Kosovo. If Hillary is elected president, it is unlikely that anyone will demand that Chelsea serve as part of any of her mother’s military deployments.)
There are major flaws with Blumenthal’s dishonest argument. First, a Washington Post-ABC News Poll in October 2001 found that 94 percent of Americans supported military action in Afghanistan. That 94 percent included millions of Democrats, perhaps even Blumenthal himself. Of course, just a tiny fraction of these Democrats enlisted after 9/11. Are the rest, including Blumenthal, chickenhawks because they failed to join the military after al Qaeda attacked us?
Second, Blumenthal’s father, Sidney, was a Clinton administration adviser from 1997 to 2001. According to Wikipedia, the junior Blumenthal was born on December 18, 1977. If that is correct, he had just turned 21 as Clinton launched his preemptive strike against Iraq during Operation Desert Fox. Blumenthal did not enlist then. Nor did he enlist several months later when Clinton launched his air campaign over Kosovo and Serbia. He was not a part of Operation Joint Guardian in Kosovo after the air campaign had ended. He wasn’t one of the thousands of military personnel in Saudi Arabia conducting operations over Southern Iraq. He was not in the Persian Gulf area when the USS Cole was bombed in October 2000. Now, either Blumenthal opposed each and every one of these operations or he is, by his own definition, a chickenhawk.
Third, Sidney Blumenthal announced on November 15, 2007 that he would no longer write a column for Salon.com because he had joined the Hillary Clinton campaign as a senior adviser. If Hillary becomes president, the senior Blumenthal will almost certainly find a position in her White House. Given that al Qaeda is unlikely to surrender the day after Hillary is inaugurated, the war against terrorism will continue and Hillary, unless she follows her husband’s example, will take actions against al Qaeda in that war. If the junior Blumenthal does not enlist to take part in that war, and instead leaves it to “less privileged young men and women fight and die,” how can we not conclude that he is a chickenhawk?
Fourth, we have never had a war in which all supporters of that war were required to serve. Even during World War II, in which Hillary says her husband would have serve, not all men served in a military uniform. For example, Sen. Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.) was 24 when the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor. He worked as a gas-station attendant, grocery-store clerk, and shipyard welder during World War II. As a member of the Ku Klux Klan, the only uniform he wore during those years came with a hood.
Finally, even at the current level of support for our military presence in Iraq, if everyone who supported that presence were in uniform in Iraq, there would be more Americans in Iraq than Iraqis.
Now I’m not suggesting that the junior Blumenthal is a coward. In fact, he demonstrated a great deal of bravery when confronting a prominent conservative in 2006. In an article entitled “An Inherited Genetic Disorder,” the conservative wrote about Blumenthal and his father. “If Max’s father had a sense of decency, his paternal instincts might have led him to caution his son before embarking so early on a bottom-feeding career,” wrote the conservative. “But Sidney Blumenthal has no such decency and would not even know how to perform this paternal function if it occurred to him to do so.”
Before writing these words, the conservative had been “interviewed” by an “imposter journalist,” who asked him what he thought of Max Blumenthal. “Still unaware that he was standing next to me, I said ‘He’s a chip off the scuzzy old block,’” the conservative wrote. “The plant asked me how I spelled ‘scuzzy.’ S-C-U-Z-Z-Y. Then he said: ‘That’s Max Blumenthal,’ who glared hard at me and vanished.”
On his own blog, Blumenthal shares a slightly different version of the encounter. According to Blumenthal, after the conservative, David Horowitz, made his “scuzzy” comment, he smiled at Horowitz and offered him an invitation him to insult him to his face, which he declined. “Even if Horowitz’s own account were accurate, he would not appear as any more courageous,” Blumenthal wrote. “Amid all his bluster, Horowitz concedes that he was only brave enough to insult me behind my back.”
To fully appreciate the courage it took for Blumenthal to offer such an in-vitation, we have to consider how imposing a man Horowitz is. At the time of their encounter, Horowitz was 67 years old. In addition, Blumenthal is roughly half a foot taller than Horowitz. You can’t help but admire how this young man mustered up the courage to confront Horowitz.
Of course, as is the Blumenthal modus operandi, Blumenthal lied to his readers. A video of the exchange on YouTube shows Horowitz saying, to Blumenthal’s face, “You have been sleazy.”
In 1992, Sidney Blumenthal actually questioned George H.W. Bush’s World War II record. In addition, when announcing that Blumenthal would be leaving Salon.com to join Hillary’s presidential campaign, Salon editor Joan Walsh noted that Blumenthal “presided over one of the best accounts of George W. Bush’s missing year in the Texas Air National Guard.”
If Blumenthal, who was born in 1948 and apparently received student deferments during the Vietnam War, attacked the military service of Bush 41 and Bush 43, just imagine the attacks he would have launched against Rudy Giuliani or Mitt Romney had either of them won the Republican presidential nomination. The media, which in 1992 quickly dismissed Bill Clinton’s extraordinary efforts to avoid the draft, would have undoubtedly treated Giuliani’s or Romney’s lack of military service as a very serious issue. Of course, as a woman, Hillary could not be drafted during the Vietnam War. Her lack of military service will not be considered an issue at all.
How will the Democrats treat John McCain, a Vietnam veteran and former POW? If past is prologue, they will not hesitate to question the courage of the GOP’s presumptive nominee. Consider the case of Congressman B. Carroll Reece (R-Tenn.). According to William F. Buckley, Reece, a supporter of Sen. Joseph McCarthy, had the following exchange with Congressman Wayne Hays (D-Ohio) in 1954:
Hays: I will say this to [you] … that out where I come from we have a saying that if a man double-crosses you once that is his fault: if he double-crosses you twice, that is your fault. I just want you to know you won’t get the second opportunity.
Reece: … there is no living man can justifiably say that… [I] have ever double-crossed anybody or … failed to keep … [my] word.
Hays: I am saying both … is that clear enough? There is no inference there, is there?
Reece: That does not disturb me a particle.
Hays: I know. You are pretty hard to disturb. I thought they had more guts in Tennessee.
The Democrat Hays was member of the Officers’ Reserve Corps, United States Army, from 1933 until called to active duty as a second lieutenant on December 8, 1941. He received a medical discharge in August 1942, just eight months after the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor. What about Reece, the Republican whose courage Hays attacked? According to Buckley, Reece “had been decorated in the first World War with the Distinguished Service Cross, the Distinguished Service Medal, and the Purple Heart. He had been awarded the Croix de Guerre with palm, cited for bravery by Marshall Petain, by Generals Edward, Hale, and Lewis.”
Reece was ultimately elected to 18 terms and served in the House longer than anyone else in Tennessee history. Hays didn’t fare quite as well. According to Time magazine, the portly Hays, 65, resigned from the House in 1976 after admitting that he had had an affair with Elizabeth Ray, 33, whom he employed as a $14,000-a-year committee clerk although she claimed that she could neither type nor file.
If the Democrats were wise, they would stop using the chickenhawk smear. After all, none of the Democratic leaders in Congress has military experience, and there may come a day when the media no longer have a double standard concerning Democrats and their lack of service. Consider Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-Ill.), the fourth-highest ranking Democrat in the House and a former Clinton White House staffer. Emanuel is much more of a Baryshnikov than a Schwarzkopf. According to the Washington Post, Emanuel was “a wiry-thin, foul-mouthed* ballet dancer from Chicago who moved to Little Rock in the fall of 1991 as one of the first advisers to Bill Clinton’s presidential campaign.”
George W. Bush wore a flight suit and flew an F-102 when he was in his twenties. Rahm Emanuel wore a tutu and pranced around on a stage when he was a younger man. If he were to seek higher office in the future, would he really like to have that brought up?* Or would he prefer that voters instead take into consideration what he did as a White House staff member and lawmaker?
Post a Comment
<< Home