David, you must realize that the first line of defense is to claim the argument of the prosecuter is invalid. The actual claim that one should be willing to actually "act" to support a cause that they vehemently support is not trivial and is quite logical. Saying it is anything otherwise is their way of trying to discredit it and make themselves feel better about themselves.

Yep, you are right. The interesting thing is that Pennywit is suppossed to be Liberal.

Batting for the other side ... a closet Republican? Or maybe ... feels it is applicable to him as well? Not all Liberals are against the war in Iraq. Many, many are totally for a war with Osama Bin Laden.

The thing is ... most warmongers want war and bloodshed. They get off on it. They love to direct all their hate to such things. But, they don't actually want to fight in such wars. They want to be sideline Generals instead.

Well he is guest blogging on Wizbang right now, so I guess that says something...

David,
If you're going to attack me for guest-blogging on Wizbang, could you kindly do so in the context of my posts there?

--|PW|--

Hey, looks like I've been preventing from responding to comments aimed at me over at Random Fate! Part of that "open dialogue" you are always going on about, eh, David?

Keep up the chickenhawk argument, framed any way you'd like. And take heart that fellow third-grade logicians like Rogue see merit in what is so clearly, to any honest person, an ad hominem (let me ask you, would the arguments Gandhi made for passive resistance be any less powerful if it turned out that he liked the occasional bar fight?). But I'm on to your passive-agressive style of argumentative sanctimonmy.

You're no more serious a thinker than Sean Hannity.

I see you avoid answering my question here too huh Jeff. The question was, if you Right Wingers are so hard core supporters of the war and THE TROOPS, why the hell arent you tearing up the blogsphere over the lack of armor, etc. And the horrible treatment they have been getting on their return home? I realize that after a couple of Martinis and a rousing round of Lets kick those Iraqi Rag Heads asses, it must be hard to think about other things, but think about it will ya?

David, if I can put aside my mangled finger and type for a minute, Pennywit was invited to Wizbang at MY suggestion, with the full knowledge that he was a liberal -- but a reasoning and reasonable one. I suggested him in hopes he'd shake up things around the place, both among the staff and the readership.

You know I've made several attempts in the past to bridge the gap between the two sides, and this is just another one. I don't know what sort of things Kevin discussed with him about posting at Wizbang, but I for one expected him to bring his own sensibilities and style to Wizbang -- much like I did when I signed on.

You have a tendency to "speak to the choir" a lot. I notice you have never brought in anyone with whom you have serious disagreements about substantive issues. Sure, you've "called out" those you disagree with, but never invited them to set up shop and argue their points directly. That's what I wanted with Penny, and that's what we're getting. And it's refreshing.

To the best of my knowledge, Penny was offered a temporary place on the very big stage that is Wizbang to BE himself. And he's doing precisely that.

And yes, David, I did briefly consider nominating you. But I see enough of my own 419 spams already in my e-mail -- I don't need to see them posted on Wizbang as well.

J.

Jay, as I said in my email, I would not even consider guesting at Wizbang. Here rightwingers can guest and no one attacks them... I dont need to say anything more about that subject.
Item 2, the Pennywit Guesting at WB was a joke since I know Angel does not like WB at all.
3.If you are still pissed about our dissagreement a few days ago, what can I say... With the attacks I get from the Right at times, I cant afford to hold a grudge.

OK, then, David, if you're setting yourself up as the arbiter of who can have opinions, I'll put it to you straight: what do I have to do before you'll allow me to speak my mind? What sort of "sacrifices" do I need to make? What will then give me the right to support the war?

I'll open with one credential: I'm a 6-gallon blood donor. And that's 6 gallons of O+ (between 6 and 8 times my total body volume of blood),the universal donor to anyone who's Rh+ (blood types O+, A+, B+, and AB+). I dunno if any's ended up in the military, but I'd be privileged and honored if it did.

J.

Again putting words in my mouth and giving me a lot more power than I have. You have every right to support the war as you see fit, and in America I have every right to call every one who beats their chest and claims support for the War, The Troops and Apple pie, and yet keeps their own pie hole closed in regards to standing up for the troops rights to have decent armor, and to be treated decently when they return, a hypocrit. Now that we have gotten all clear on what we both have rights to, are either one of you going to Guest Blog? And now that I have reminded you how horribly we treat our service people, I am sure you are going to go run off and support them... RIGHT?

The ESSENCE of the "chickenhawk" argument is personal. It's an attempt to say that certain people have no right to hold certain positions. It's as repugnant to me as those who call conservative blacks "Uncle Toms," conservative gays "traitors," and non-Zionist Jews "self-haters."

But let's take a look at the two criteria you DID outline: I have on my car squadron insignia from a Navy pilot who I met on leave from Iraq. I treated him decently and respectfully, and to my complete astonishment he gave me a couple of "zaps." (Apparently it's a service prank to get near another squadron's aircraft when they're unguarded and put your own squadron's stickers on them. It's to tweak them for not guarding their planes better.) I'm rather proud of them. And that's just one example.

As far as the armor argument: been there, done that, bought the T-Shirt.

Now, as far as apple pie... it's OK, but I prefer blueberry or, even better, raspberry. Not overly fond of baseball, either, for that matter.

J.

Oh dude, you have reached a whole new LOW, so now you, sitting in the comfort of your home, sipping a cocktail and comfortable as hell, YOU THE BIG TROOP supporter and military genious, are going to decide what is best for the guys out there in the field. I just lost ALL respect for you Jay. I cant believe how ludicrous those three post at Wizbang were. Well gee, let me see. We done fucked up and given the Liberals a SUPPORT THE TROOPS issue, so let me just point out (From the comfort of my home of course), that armored vehicles arent all they are cracked up to be. Next you are going to tell us that the Kevlar vest PARENTS are having to buy for their sons and daughters isnt really practical, too damned hot over there to wear Kevlar. There ya go folks, REAL support of the troops!

First off: cocktail? I told you before I don't drink. Period. Nada.
Second: you said "armor," not "body armor." The military draws a huge distinction between the two. "Armor" means "vehicles" unless otherwise specified, and that's what I discussed. (Source: Luttwak and Koehl, "Dictionary of Modern War," 1991, p. 47-48.)
Third: my position is "armor is not always the best answer," and one should leave the decision of whether or not it is needed up to the experts. You're the one appointing yourself the military genius and saying that armor is the magic solution to all the problems. I've studied military matters extensively (albeit strictly as an amateur); what are YOUR credentials?

Finally, I've noticed that whenever I actually do research and cite historical precedents, you get all upset and yelling. Might it be healthier for both of us if we reversed it on occasion, where you do the homework and I get all hissy? I could use the break.

J.

It was a metaphor Jay, and if Armor (For Vehicles), was not important, why are our troops digging through junk yards to find pieces to weld onto their vehicles. And the body armor is equally important, did you address that somewhere on Wizbang and I missed it?
No, I dont claim to be an expert, I have simply read the reports and seen the interviews with the troops where they are begging for it, and Rumsfeld promising it was just arround the corner... or somethin' like that.

David, Pennywit, et al...
Well, I rather hoped this conversation was over. I did want to say that I don't subscribe to the generalization that all people of one political persuasion or another that support or don't support the war or vice versa, should have to fight in that war--basically put up or shut up. On the other hand, I really dislike those who go by the mantra of do what I say and not what I do. I do not like the chickenhawk connotations either. Referring to anyone. It's degrading and terminology that no one deserves.

There are people of all persuasions and beliefs in the middle, the fringes and the outside of this war situation. We all need to remember that, even me, because the extremes can not win this cause, only reasonable solutions and action will, in combination with a better understanding and knowledge of everything that has occurred (and why) before relative to Iraq, prevail.

I responded to Jeff Goldstein's taunts yesterday and today because I felt he was truly picking on David for doing something in reality based on his ideals. Unfair and unnecessary all around.

A note to all of you. Perhaps, it would be best to say, PAX. This whole conversation is rather...over the top. I posted yet again tonite in response to the five repeated posts by Jeff and then went and read his site again...not all of it, but quite alot. And, frankly, his post on this subject has as much merit as anyones. I even annointed him for the Supreme Court! (evil grin) And, I too, am a flaming leftist liberal.

It's unfair for either argument to sling mud at each others ideals. The validity of either point of view doesn't fail because someones disagrees with the notion. The problem with both sides, it seems to me, is that, what you are looking at are only extreme cases, not necessarily the norm.

This entire war, not unlike the Civil War, is making enemies of family and friends. So, PAX.

Jeff, actually my ability to think logically is quite above third grade level. Unfortunately, your ability to flame someone never progressed past kindergarten because I don't feel assaulted by your ignorance at all. :)

Gandhi ... bar fights ... okay. LOL

We really must stop feeding the trolls Rogue. LMAO!

Forgive an old pacifist for butting into this but I think you brainy guys are getting lost in semantics and missing the practical point here. Forget chickenhawks. Pick any name you like for it but, without necessarily including anyone participating in this debate, I don't see that those who support the war from the comfort of their computer screens are doing much to help the war effort outside of promoting the White House talking points and frankly I don't get why they do it.

They're obviously too intelligent to have been fooled by the WH rhetoric to be blinded to the preponderence of evidence that we are losing in Iraq. There's a growing legion of well-versed insiders who are risking all to come forward and say it was a collosal mistake. Our continued presence escalates the violence and is a magnet that draws every nutcase terrorist to Iraq as it if were Mecca itself. How many more thousand must die before its supporters admit what a macabre Catch-22 this "war" has become?

We don't have enough troops on the ground, it's as simple as that. I've asked this before and I still don't see that any war supporter has answered. If no one will volunteer, who will fight? I think David is right on this point. I support the troops by trying to get them out of the shooting gallery, and anyone who would like to keep them there under the present circumstances, in practical terms - is supporting Bush but is not supporting them.

Sooo...does that mean since I'm joining the Army come January, that everything I say regarding the war I support is per se correct and cannot be challenged?

Cool.

Nope, that is what now I have been saying. At all. But I have grown tired of the discussion and of my words being twisted so fuck it.

Christopher Cross said:

Sooo...does that mean since I'm joining the Army come January, that everything I say regarding the war I support is per se correct and cannot be challenged?

No, it doesn't mean you can't be challenged on your POV but it's to your credit that you're putting your money where your mouth is and helping the effort that you believe in. It will be interesting to see if your opinion changes once you get on the ground in Iraq for a few months.

Not that you'll necessarily be able to tell anyone if you stop believing the occupation is worth it. Just ask Leonard Clark.

His blog is being shut down after being threatened with court martial (and worse) for using his FA rights to tell the real story from the front lines. It only took them two months to shut him down.

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

URL:
Remember me? YesNo

Subscribe to this comment thread.

Comments: