It's Their War, So Why Aren't They Fighting It?

[Legio XX Valeria Victrix]

but NOT all war supporters are hyprocrites and cowards. SOME are in iraq - fighting. does the hyprocracy and cowardice of SOME of the supporters invalidate the whole argument to go to war? no. that is why this coward argument holds no ground. if ALL of the pro-bush war supporters were not in the military, then yes, the argument to go to war would be hyprocritical and invalid.

If you can quote me or ThiudareiksGunthigg or Siena saying that ALL supporters of the war are chickenhawks, then be my guest. But you might as well not, cause you won't find it. We are referring to an admittedly small faction of those people, and they are the young men, 18-30 and in good health, who are quick to assert that the war is for good causes and not founded on lies or false information, and encourage those at home to join and fight for that cause, but then when asked themselves why they aren't serving, they change the subject, or slink away, or deflect the question in some way. THAT's who we're referring to, not ALL Bush-supporters, or Iraq supporters, just those people.

Furthermore, no one has said that their cowardice or hypocrasy debases the entire pro-war argument. I believe other sources do that, but certainly the chickenhawks being hypocritical aren't among them.

[Siena72]

Where was it ever said that you have to fight in a war to support it? Pro-Bush supporters are just that, Pro-Bush. They feel that what the Bush administration is doing is the right thing to do, whether they want to participate and further that cause themselves, or just support it with their opinion, is up to the individual. Where do you get off demeaning and demanding from them? Do you feel that everyone who is not in the military should hate and not support the war? How would that make the troops feel? Deja Vu?

IMO - this is the point.
If you are advocating the war - and are given the chance to fight it - then go and do it, or tone down your rethoric.
If you cannot fight the war - because of "other commitments" or just generaly unable, and you know that the war will be fought by the hands of other people - then tone down your rethoric.
Your is only an theorethical opinion.
you can change your opinion, but people who will die for your opinion - you will not raise.

There seems to be a big fear of not "supporting the troops" enough. The fear that this would conjure Vietnam again.
Tell me - how does having the opinion, but not doing anything about it - except for forums and bumper stickers - supports the troops?
Maybe the propaganda keeps the morale at home, so that troops will stay in the war longer?
What if the troops themselves get tired of the war? Will you attempt to put your opinion on them? Or just go instead of them?

[Legio XX Valeria Victrix]

I'm saying that if young men were cowardly enough to refuse to fight (on both sides) there wouldn't be any wars, and people would have to sort out their problems peacefully. Hence cowardice is not nessesarily a bad thing.

I would have to disagree with your defining that as cowardice and would instead suggest that you are referring to cool-headedness or something of that nature. The people we're referring to are not cool-headed or thoughtful about this issue. They are quick to urge others their age to fight in Iraq, but then they themselves exhibit cowardly behavior by not heeding their own advice. That's a totally different situation than the one you describe.

That wouldn't be a discussion, it'd be a series of lectures. The subtext of the point being put forth is clear, and it's perfectly valid to expose it. Using one argument to silence proponents of a different argument (that is not logically related) is not valid. This is especially true when you try to exclude any arguments over the point you are actually, surrepticiously, trying to win. In fact it's not only invalid, it verges on dishonest.

It's like Republicans saying that people are traitors if they don't support the war, and then saying "this discussion isn't about whether the war is morally right, it's about the fact that you're a traitor because you don't support our troops". It's a lot of hooey.

Alright, you got me here . Certainly this debate hinges on our disagreement with the war in general. But there's plenty of other threads with that purpose already. This one, imo, was to criticize the actions of a certain group of that pro-war demographic. Certainly, our disgreement of their opinions is the basis for this debate, but the fact is that people try to debase the opinions of those they disagree with, just as you and I are doing right now. One thing I still disagree with is why our arguments are invalid as a result.

[ThiudareiksGunthigg]

Now then, I have had about enough of this nonsense.

I see.

Who gave you the right and moral authority to judge the opinions of others?

Why do you think I don’t have the right and moral authority to judge the opinions of others? Why wouldn’t I? They (and you) can judge mine all you like; go right ahead. Oh, you already have …

Do you insult Pro-Bush supporters with anything you can in an attempt to discredit their opinions?

Hell no. Rank hypocrisy and cowardice will do nicely for now.

Where was it ever said that you have to fight in a war to support it?

You don’t. But if you support this war and are eligible to fight in it, what justification do you have for sitting back and waving your hands around while others are fighting and dying in it? You’re 19 for example. Prime enlistment age. So, how do you justify allowing others to do the dirty work while you sit back and pontificate?

Or are you posting this from Tikrit? If so, I apologise profusely.

Pro-Bush supporters are just that, Pro-Bush.

I have no beef with the Pro-Bush types who are anti-war. Or those who are pro-war, but over enlisting age. Or those with a genuine reason for not enlisting. The others, however, are hypocrites and shirkers.

Which category do you fall into BTW?

They feel that what the Bush administration is doing is the right thing to do, whether they want to participate and further that cause themselves, or just support it with their opinion, is up to the individual.

Why do you guys keep telling me enlistment is voluntary? I know it’s voluntary, I’m just questioning why these fierce Keyboard Warriors suddenly start whistling and looking the other way when they see a Recruiting Officer.

BTW, so far in your post you’ve given me two points on ‘Operation Yellow Elephant Bingo’:

http://webpages.charter.net/micah/bingobig.gif

Where do you get off demeaning and demanding from them?

Yes, how dare I point out their blatant, callow hypocrisy. I’m so ashamed …

Do you feel that everyone who is not in the military should hate and not support the war?

No, but I think those who are so bellicose about the war and of enlisting age should sign up or shut up. Or is this war only great if it’s other people shedding their blood while people like you preach the Gospel of Bush unto us, forsooth?

How would that make the troops feel?

Er, yup. If you’re such a Carebear about how the troops feel, why not encourage some of your Chickenhawk pals to enlist so some of them can come home to their families in one piece. Or get thee hence to a Recruiting Station yourself. That will make them feel real good.

In some disgusting partisan rant for no other reason than to discredit the other side while making yourselves feel good, you come up with this “Yellow Republican” and “Chickenhawk” nonsense. Have you no shame at all?

It’s ‘nonsense’ how, exactly?

Do conservatives tell you that you should either go kill Bush or stop hating him? That is just about as irrational.

Now the wobbly false analogies begin …

This new trend of irrational hatred and cheap insults seems to be the only leg left on the platform of Liberalism these days.

Yes, how insensitive of me. Fancy pointing out the hypocrisy of hypocrites and hurting their little feelings. What was I thinking?

Have you ever thought that perhaps many who would wish to enlist now simply cannot, due to responsibilities and other commitments at home that prevent them from serving their beloved country proudly?

I’ve already made it perfectly clear that I’m not talking about those people at all. Or are you seriously trying to tell me that every eligible, able-bodied pro-war zealot in the US is already in country in Iraq? Amazing that the armed forces are doing so badly in meeting their recruitment targets then, eh?

Have you ever stopped to think through your disgusting rhetoric that you are not seeing the whole picture, but just what you want to see?

Yes, I did stop to think if I was doing that. Then I discovered that I wasn’t, and breathed a huge sigh of relief.

We have a volunteer military, those who wish to enlist, do.

So you keep saying. Which clumsily sidesteps the whole point: there are a large number of pro-war zealots who, for some mysterious reason, become rather less vocal when asked to put their precious ars*s on the line.

Obviously there will be more poor people than rich, as there are far more poor citizens than rich citizens. Obviously there will be far more minorities than white people, as there are far more poor minorities than poor white people. Those are just simple facts. To attempt to use them to insult people is ridiculous.

Personally, I don’t care what their skin colour is or whether they are rich or poor. I’m much more interested in why they are so less enthusiastic about this grubby little war when it’s their arms, legs or heads that may be blown off.

Those of you who would insult others and call them names in some twisted attempt to justify your own politics while discrediting the other side, need to grow up and look at the real world. Childish name calling is for immature little kids in school, and sometimes I cannot help but wonder if that is what many of you are.

Calling a hypocrite a hypocrite may be an insult, but it’s hardly childish name calling. It’s the truth and it’s a highly effective rhetorical tool for making a point.

From the high-pitched squealing coming from certain quarters, it seems some are finding this point wickedly pointed.

[Ran Taro]

are you advocating hypocrisy? If you are not ready to back up your opinion, when given the chance - then your opinion is worthless. What is the point of having an opinion then?

What is the "the logic, or the truth, of their arguments"?
saying such things like "to kill is wrong" and then killing?
Or "to steal is wrong" and then stealing?
or "to bring democracy with the use of army is right and good", but then not wanting to actually go do it?
Did you even hear such thing - ACTIONS SPEAK LOUDER THAN WORDS?
If your words and actions do not correspond, aren't you a hypocrite?

No I don't advocate hypocrisy. But neither do I confuse it with something that invalidates an argument. All people are hypocritical. Some of them make very valid arguments.

If a murderer tells you murder is wrong, he's a hypocrite. But he is also right.

[Siena72]

quoting is simply a forum tool to allow you to show your source. fix quoting is common wherever people post in forums such as these, where someone posts something incorrect, and they are quoted with the text corrected.

is this easier for you to understand?

you should look up what quoting is.
Quoting means repeating other people's words. If you want to comment on them - go ahead, but what is the point of your comment if you change the words you are commenting on?
You are arguing with yourself then.

[Siena72]

No I don't advocate hypocrisy. But neither do I confuse it with something that invalidates an argument. All people are hypocritical. Some of them make very valid arguments.

If a murderer tells you murder is wrong, he's a hypocrite. But he is also right.

tell me - would you care if murderer told you the murder is wrong and then killed you?
He could just as well fart instead of talking.

[dark11]

The military is a tradition in my family everyone of the men in my family fought atleast 1 war i know of 2 that died...Im not busting a gut to join but when i feel my nation needs me most i will join.

Partly why i not joining now is because it not a war its a occupation with alot of partisanship.

[Ran Taro]

tell me - would you care if murderer told you the murder is wrong and then killed you?
He could just as well fart instead of talking.

Exactly, because what he DID would have no relationship to what he said. What he said was RIGHT, what he did was WRONG. And this is my point exactly.

Don't make the mistake of thinking that what someone is SAYING has to be wrong, just because what they are DOING is wrong.

[allthesedamnnamesaretaken]

If you can quote me or ThiudareiksGunthigg or Siena saying that ALL supporters of the war are chickenhawks, then be my guest. But you might as well not, cause you won't find it. We are referring to an admittedly small faction of those people, and they are the young men, 18-30 and in good health, who are quick to assert that the war is for good causes and not founded on lies or false information, and encourage those at home to join and fight for that cause, but then when asked themselves why they aren't serving, they change the subject, or slink away, or deflect the question in some way. THAT's who we're referring to, not ALL Bush-supporters, or Iraq supporters, just those people.

Furthermore, no one has said that their cowardice or hypocrasy debases the entire pro-war argument. I believe other sources do that, but certainly the chickenhawks being hypocritical aren't among them.

well the whole title of the thread says it: It's Their War, So Why Aren't They Fighting It?. it's an attack on the pro-wars that they're advocating war but they're not there to fight it. you're looking to discredit them with an attack on their personal character which really has no relation to whether or not you are pro-war or antiwar.

you should look up what quoting is.
Quoting means repeating other people's words. If you want to comment on them - go ahead, but what is the point of your comment if you change the words you are commenting on?
You are arguing with yourself then.

believe what you what. i think it was a sound way to get my point across, and i'm not the first one to use it. if you feel the need to discredit my arugument with an attack on my posting methods, which has no relation to the argument in this thread, then go ahead. you're supportingn the same thing in the pro-war/anti-war arugment anyways. i'd expect no better from you.

[Rex331]

You know Rex, you've got a brain in your head, which I can respect, but you just need to stop taking individuals' opinions and somehow lumping them into your '"Left/Liberal Agenda" and how wrong they are' sort of generalizations. I've seen you ever so isolated take off the partisan goggles. Unfortunately, this is not one of those posts.

You ask ThiudareiksGunthigg about where he gets the 'right and moral authority to judge other peoples opinions,' and then you go ahead and judge his opinion. Well, what gives you the right? What gives ANY of us the right, for that matter?? The fact is, we all judge others' opinions, and it is not wrong to do so. To slander them for their opinion is wrong, and perhaps calling people cowards for their opinions is doing so. But then, so is calling them 'liberal trash' or something of that nature as well.

The fact is, a logical, intelligent discussion cannot occur with you saying things like "the Left" this and "Liberals" that. If you take people one at a time, you'll find it works better that way.

I did not mean to judge his opinions, I meant to judge and defend against his accusations. He is not the first to use this "Yellow Republican" and "Chickenhawk" nonsense, so I decide to lump them all together and refer to them as "the Left". Perhaps I should have said "the Far Left", but these days there does not seem to be much of a difference.

Logical and intelligent discussion cannot take place at all in a thread such as this. It is simply hatred and childish name calling aimed towards Republicans and Conservatives. It is an effort to insult, belittle, and demean a certain group of people due to their political beliefs. I made an effort not to do these things in my post (Not from some arrogant nose raising sense of “stooping to their level”, as I have no qualms or problems with doing that, but) because I did not want this thread to turn into what it looks like it is turning into.

ThiudareiksGunthigg and people like him seem to have so much hatred that they would say almost anything to make the people they hate look bad. He has every right to his opinion, but when it insults me personally, I take offense, internet or not.

[Kanaric]

I also dont understand how people can be hardcore for supporting a war but dont want to go and fight for it. If you think its so morally right to fight for something then you should fight for it. If you do not then you are a coward and a hypocrit, no arugeing against it because that is the prime and simple truth.

The only problem with the is the last war without cowards was World War 2 and argueably Desert Storm.

In a war you chose to send people to fight for an ideal that you support. If you support the idea you should fight for it if you voted to have people fight it. Obviously if a cause is worth life it should be worth yours as well, no?

Perhaps I should have said "the Far Left", but these days there does not seem to be much of a difference.

Maybe your just so far to the right that everyone is the far left? Looks like that to me. Your the type who thinks moderates dont exist.

I do agree that he shouldn't use namecalling to prove a point though. If you cant prove a point by stating facts then you shouldn't post.

[ThiudareiksGunthigg]

well the whole title of the thread says it: It's Their War, So Why Aren't They Fighting It?. it's an attack on the pro-wars that they're advocating war but they're not there to fight it.

Hmmm, seems like you almost grasped the point for a moment there. But not quite. The 'Their' in the title (and I should know, as it's my title) refers to the 'pro-wars' who are "young men, 18-30 and in good health, who are quick to assert that the war is for good causes and not founded on lies or false information, and encourage those at home to join and fight for that cause, but then when asked themselves why they aren't serving, they change the subject, or slink away, or deflect the question in some way", as Legio XX Valeria Victrix said.

Got it this time?

[Kanaric]

All of the people who I know who are openly right-wing DO fight the war, which is funny. I guess they actually do believe in their convictions.

[ThiudareiksGunthigg]

I did not mean to judge his opinions, I meant to judge and defend against his accusations.

Which is an entirely different thing, of course.

He is not the first to use this "Yellow Republican" and "Chickenhawk" nonsense, so I decide to lump them all together and refer to them as "the Left". Perhaps I should have said "the Far Left", but these days there does not seem to be much of a difference.

Careful, you'll offend my fellow Politburo members. BTW Rex, you have been so busy posting in high dudgeon - stratospheric dudgeon, in fact - that you keep forgetting to explain how pointing out the hypocrisy of hypocrites is 'nonsense'. Take this as a kind and gentlemanly reminder for your next post.

Logical and intelligent discussion cannot take place at all in a thread such as this.

It has been so far.

It is simply hatred and childish name calling aimed towards Republicans and Conservatives.

Calling a hypocrite a hypocrite may not be comfortable for the hypocrite, but it's valid if it's true. This hypersensitive 'Oooh stop it, you wicked LIBERAL bullies!!!' squealing is a mere smokescreen. The point you are desperately trying to avoid is why people who advocate others die in this sordid war aren't hypocrites for shirking service themselves. Please stop squealing and answer that point.

It is an effort to insult, belittle, and demean a certain group of people due to their political beliefs.

Er, due to the fact they don't seem to have the courage of their convictions to match those beliefs with action commensurate with their bellicose rhetoric. If I was simply calling Republicans and Neo-cons 'buttmunching poopyheads' you'd have a point. But I'm not. So you don't.

ThiudareiksGunthigg and people like him seem to have so much hatred that they would say almost anything to make the people they hate look bad.

Ah, the joys of internet psycho-analysis ...

He has every right to his opinion, but when it insults me personally, I take offense, internet or not.

If you have a valid reason not to go to Iraq then that's great. If you don't, then I'm really sorry, but you're a hypocrite. And I'm sure those troops you 'support' would agree with me - especially the ones who are well and truly overdue to come home.

[Legio XX Valeria Victrix]

I did not mean to judge his opinions, I meant to judge and defend against his accusations. He is not the first to use this "Yellow Republican" and "Chickenhawk" nonsense, so I decide to lump them all together and refer to them as "the Left". Perhaps I should have said "the Far Left", but these days there does not seem to be much of a difference.

Right, but therein lies your problem. You've just lumped me into the far Left, because I agree with the assertion that there are Chickenhawks out there and that they are hypocrites. I am not a part of the far left, I am more of a centrist than anything else. Hell, if John McCain runs for prez in 2008, he's got my vote. The problem is you're taking a group of people who are from all political affiliations and generalizing that they are the far Left. I would wager that people who believe there are chickenhawks out there range from the the far Left to even some Republicans, and to some troops in Iraq. I know I'd be mighty ****** if I were deployed there for two tours and saw some punk 22 year old go on and on about how lofty our goals are in Iraq and then never put his own ass on the line for his convictions.

This thread turns into precisely what you say you don't want it to when you start spouting things like The Left, or The Right.

[Rex331]

Alright ThiudareiksGunthigg, as I pointed out in my posts above, you are not here to discuss things rationally and intelligently. You are here to hate and insult. I could not even quote to counter your response to my earlier post simply because there was nothing to quote. You brought absolutely nothing new to the discussion, you simply insulted, berated, belittled, and demeaned me and everything in my post. Good Job. Instead of easily doing the same to you, I will just leave you with my Marine Corps recruiter’s name, Sergeant Richard Avalos, as I will most likely be in Iraq sometime early next year. You see, my pompous, hateful, and ignorant friend, I wanted to debate with you your actually name calling accusations, not defend my own personal views. Unfortunately, your blind ignorant hatred has made that impossible. You would rather insult, not discuss, and that is why you created this thread.

[Kanaric]

You know if your actually joining the marines what he said doesn't apply to you and it shows you are actually acting with you ideals. So why did you take offense for it? You should read Legio XX Valeria Victrix's post.

I'll leave the rest that needs to be replied against to someone else.

[allthesedamnnamesaretaken]

Hmmm, seems like you almost grasped the point for a moment there. But not quite. The 'Their' in the title (and I should know, as it's my title) refers to the 'pro-wars' who are "young men, 18-30 and in good health, who are quick to assert that the war is for good causes and not founded on lies or false information, and encourage those at home to join and fight for that cause, but then when asked themselves why they aren't serving, they change the subject, or slink away, or deflect the question in some way", as Legio XX Valeria Victrix said.

Got it this time?

even though you only directed it to those in that demographic, it naturally implied to me that you were still using this argument as a tool to gain favor in the whole leftwing/rightwing issue cause you got that whole yellow elephant thing going on, which is clearly partisan. if you're just out to say that persons 18-30 supporting the war should join the military, then yeah. does proving they are hyprocrites really change anything though? no

[Rex331]

You know if your actually joining the marines what he said doesn't apply to you and it shows you are actually acting with you ideals. So why did you take offense for it? You should read Legio XX Valeria Victrix's post.

I'll leave the rest that needs to be replied against to someone else.

I took offense because, as I explained, I disagree with his entire notion of "Yellow Republicans" and "Chickenhawks". I believe it is fine and good for someone to support and defend a war in which they belief in the cause, and not have to fight in it.

EDIT: Then he began personally insulting me.