The above picture of Ace going to town in your office is disturbing. I think he went blind.

I remember those two kids in that office- insane in the membrane.

Didn’t Chris Hitchens try this “The only way to win the war is for those who have always opposed it to volunteer” schtick too?

I believe I thought he was insane at the time, but if my livelihood depended upon my not ever getting the point, I’d probably spend my days reciting such inanities.

God knows what Ace’s excuse is. Unfocused anger at reality and denial, if his website is anything to go by.

Because I have some little-known intel for ya — he’s in the mountains of Northwest Pakistan, just over the border from Afghanistan.

Geez Ace, you might want to pass the rarified gas you just passed on to the Commander in Chief. And by the by, in the beginning, before God created the Iraq-has-nothing-to-do-with-9/11 war, there were troops aplenty to go after bin Laden. Your beloved president decided he wasn’t a priority (over Halliburton’s need for a quick cash grab). Indeed, Bush said some time ago that he was no longer concerned about bin Laden.

And when are you signing up? Hey, it’s your war.

Ace is saving himself for Iran. He wants to be strapped to a bunker buster and fired at 1,800 miles an hour through 40 feet of reinforced concrete in the side of a mountain.

Ace:

My neice became a Marine with the explicit intention of going to Afghanistan.

She’s in Iraq.

Thus, the problem, genius.

Congrats on winning the Kevin Smith’s Nerdy Brother contest.

Ace’s (is that really what he looks like? Man. George Lucas wanna-be, much?) logic is kind of like if M.C. Escher and Picasso had a love child. And the child had Down Syndrome. Then Pollock used the child’s whisper soft baby hair to paint his next work, WHILE it’s still attached to the kid’s head.

I simply can’t even begin to fathom how that could make logical to anyone, ever.
That’s some Hitchhiker’s Guide grade shit right there.

like if M.C. Escher and Picasso had a love child. And the child had Down Syndrome. Then Pollock used the child’s whisper soft baby hair to paint his next work, WHILE it’s still attached to the kid’s head.

Why does Some Guy hate Keith Haring???

Woopsie, that was me with the Haring joke…

Man it’s always disturbing to see a first picture of these nuts, and to find out they’re so much older than you’d assume. Reading ace’s posts, it’s impossible not to picture a 15-year old acne-ridden basement dweller, railing hormonally about all his imagined ‘enemies’.

That is a sad sad commentary indeed.

I did my time for the USA, albeit without a rifle.

what’ve you done, ace?

Sign up to put my life in the hands of George Bush, the man who knowingly lied so he could volunteer thousands of Americans for death and dismemberment, who fucks up catastrophically everything he touches and shits on everything I hold dear?

Ace, ***I don’t think so***.

Anyway, basically agreeing with the Afghanistan war is not the same as your screaming every fucking day for more war, more Arab blood, and more Americans to be sent out where they can be blown up to satisfy your chickenshit hysteria. If you’re going to demand more violence against people who never attacked us, then fuck yeah, asshole, you better sign up or shut your doughy blowdried piehole.

Hehe. Okay, tell you what. Let’s toss some’a http://www.haring.com/cgi-bin/art_lrg.cgi?date=1988&genre=Painting&start=0&id=00074 this in there, and see who salutes.

“Man it’s always disturbing to see a first picture of these nuts, and to find out they’re so much older than you’d assume. Reading ace’s posts, it’s impossible not to picture a 15-year old acne-ridden basement dweller, railing hormonally about all his imagined ‘enemies’.”
Like when I realized that The Junkies were really in their mid-fourties, most with kids.

Has anyone seen my ants?

Its like an Arsonist running away from the school he just set on fire screaming at everyone for not doing more to save the children.

So their argument now is “I’M NOT A CHICKENHAWK! YOU’RE A CHICKENHAWK!!1!!! LOLOOLOL”

That’s weak even for them.

The chickenhawk label is so stinging to them that they will come up with the craziest stuff to try to deflect it. It eats away at the machismo that is the basis of their public image, and gets right to the heart of the matter. These are the guys that always provoked the schoolyard fights, but then always stayed at the back to watch and taunt, never wanting to get their new pants dirty.

Perhaps if the Army would let people volunteer for Afghanistan and only Afghanistan, more people would volunteer. But they won’t.

Perhaps if the police department (or fire department, etc.) was terminally short of recruits and could no longer do its job, then more people would join. But they aren’t.

The Army is terminally short of recruits, and does not have enough troops to do its job in Iraq (or Afghanistan). There’s not even enough to do this half-assed “surge” that Dear Leader is suggesting. Military experts are saying that we are breaking the Army with the stop-loss orders and the long, repeated tours. Where are the chickenhawks? Standing behind the soldiers cheering, but not wanting to get their new pants dirty.

From Case File: Smelt It v. Dealt It

See also Made the Rhyme v. Did the Crime.

Has anyone seen my ants?

They’re in your pants. You need to dance.

Has anyone seen my ants?

……….m’ m’ m’ m’ m’ m’ m’ m’ m’ m’

Is that really Ace? Why does he have a bouffant? Is that where all of the WMD went?

Does this blowdried tool actually think that when you enlist, you can just pick the place where you’ll serve? What a fucking moron.

Mötörhead called, Ace, and they’re coming to take your nickname back.

“Why is his head so big!?”

– Gir

If you think that the John Rogers link is going to carry the day for you on the whole “chickenhawk” meme, you are (sadly!) mistaken.

His problem (and yours, by implication) isn’t one of rhetoric. You guys have that in spades (ha!).

The problem is his lack of logical rigor. The problem with John “Catwoman” Rogers is that all of his chest-pounding Mr. Smith Goes to Washington bravado has NOTHING TO DO with his defense of the term “chickenhawk.” These two ideas are placed next to each other on his website. But the first does not logically support the second. Now, THAT’S some quality “rhetorical sleight of hand.”

He lays out how indignant he is over the body armor thing and the post-invasion planning problems, and then leaps ahead and says, “see– the term ‘chickenhawk’ is what I use to summarize the armor-and-planning criticisms.”

That’s complete and utter bullshit.

First, the armor-and-planning criticisms post-date the ‘chickenhawk’ meme. First came the slur, then came the criticisms about armor and planning. See? That means that you aren’t using ‘chickenhawk’ to function as a ‘placeholder’ for your armor-and-planning criticisms.

Second, I don’t for one second believe that you Lefties are genuinely motivated by a concern over armor and planning. These are technical problems. I’m not saying they aren’t genuine problems; I am sure there are experts who have well-developed opinions on them. I am saying that they are not doctrinal matters. They are not ideological matters. They are not about principles. They are logistical, practical problems. Such things do not form the basis for an ideological, political movement.

Do you really think that the left-over children of the 60s, the ones who invented the idea of calling police officers “pigs” are GENUINELY concerned about making sure that these “pigs” have enough bullets? Please.

Nowhere does he squarely and effectively address the hypocrisy of the Democrats’ support of Afghanistan, Kosovo, Somalia, and every other Democrat-backed war with their childish insistence on calling their political supporters ‘chickenhawks.’ Nowhere does he, or you, ever explain how such a label is not equally applicable to every Democrat who loves Democrat wars.

Everything that John “The Core” Rogers says sounds real good. On the plus side, it tries to steal the conservatives’ thunder by trying to out-support the self-appointed troop-supporters. But, like everything the Left does, it’s a lie.

Actually, with the jumbo head, bouffant hairdo, and whiny mouth, he really does look like a chickenhawk.

Do you really think that the left-over children of the 60s, the ones who invented the idea of calling police officers “pigs� are GENUINELY concerned about making sure that these “pigs� have enough bullets? Please.

Wow. That may be the single stupidest thing I’ve ever read. And I’ve spent time at Powerline.

After taking Rogers to task for “rhetorical sleight of hand,” you abruptly shift the discussion from supporting our troops in the field today to protestors shouting at cops forty years ago. Not only is that a giant leap, but it has nothing to do with the issue at hand (Iraq) or the person making the criticism (Rogers was in the womb at the time).

Put down the OxyContin, kid, and switch off the AM radio.

I love how Glenn Greenwald explicitly rejected the normal chickenhawk argument, but the righties keep trying to claim that he made an argument he didn’t.

On the plus side, it tries to steal the conservatives’ thunder by trying to out-support the self-appointed troop-supporters. But, like everything the Left does, it’s a lie.

It’s a lie? Did the Democrats have their fingers crossed when they fought against the Bush administration’s efforts to cut back on hazardous duty pay, to reduce VA health care, to limit rehabilitation services, to restrict terms for life insurance policies, and to lengthen tours of duty for guardsmen?

You’re right, there is one party that’s claiming to support the troops while shitting all over them. The Republicans.

Phinn, the difference is that Afghanistan, Kosovo, and Somalia didn’t overextend our Army to the breaking point while we were cheering it on from the sidelines. Also, the people on the left who supported those wars didn’t also SIMULTANEOUSLY demand tax cuts, essentially refusing to pay for the war they supported.

Also, I don’t give a rat’s ass what you think motivates me; I want the troops to have the gear they need to survive long enough for me and other like-minded people to get them home. See, while you and yours are worried about ideological political movements, real people have to worry about the “technical problems” your movements cause, as well as clean up the messes your “technical problems” leave behind. So, perhaps if you and yours had considered the “logistical, practical” problems before going on your “ideological, political” crusade, we wouldn’t be in this mess.

And why don’t you go ahead and get over the 60’s already. I’m sorry you managed to be the only person alive then who didn’t get laid, but that was 40 years ago. Let it go, man.

So Phinn, wtf are you doing to support the guys getting shot at for you?

Are you holding their bosses accountable? No. You are out there like every other damn rightwing loon, contriving excuses; because you loves you some brown people killin.

You talk about Rogers’ weak logic, yet you trot out the perennial ‘dirty hippies’ strawman, completel with reference to “pigs”

Please. The point is that you believe this is a world-shaking, epoch making ‘clash of civilizations’, a critical necessity to maintain the existence of America. As such, you should be willing to make the ultimate sacrifice for your Mother Country.

And as a final Attack On Straw, you pull out an argument that support for a previous military action requires support for all other military actions, else you are a hypocrite. To borrow, yet again, a classic movie quote “You keep saying that word. I do not think it means what YOU think it means.” The difference in the actions you mention were that they were adequately planned, had definable goals, contingency planning, and did not involve overextending our resources.

You may not be a chickenhawk. But you are, sir, a man who does not have the courage of his convictions.

Phinn is a reminder that we aren’t dealing with rational people (yeah, we already knew that). They do not have the ability to understand logic and reason. They do not understand what we are saying. Period. They have an agenda and a million pre-conceived notions. It would be best to mock them and humiliate them for the lying cowards that they are. Never let up. We outnumber them.

After taking Rogers to task for “rhetorical sleight of hand,� you abruptly shift the discussion from supporting our troops in the field today to protestors shouting at cops forty years ago. Not only is that a giant leap, but it has nothing to do with the issue at hand (Iraq) or the person making the criticism (Rogers was in the womb at the time).

A. It’s not a giant leap — it’s central to one of my points (which you failed to address) is that the Democrat crusade against the Iraq invasion IS NOT GENUINELY MOTIVATED by concern over armor and planning. Maybe some of you are, and maybe some of you just think you are, but the rest are just using these points to disguise your REAL motivation.

The REAL motivation for this rhetorical campaign is being safely guarded by the leaders of your Party and its bankrollers, who, unlike John “Transformers” Rogers, really were there, in the Summer of Love, spitting on cops and soldiers. “How dare you not give them enough bullets and body armor” was not often heard.

B. You and your ilk take your cues from these people, and are its intellectual and ideological descendants. Disavow them, though, if you don’t agree with them.

The real question is: How does Phinn access the internet from the asylum? I mean, even if he could get out of the straitjacket, do the inmates have computers?

And why don’t you go ahead and get over the 60’s already. I’m sorry you managed to be the only person alive then who didn’t get laid, but that was 40 years ago. Let it go, man.

I’m 36.

And you people don’t get it, do you?

I’m against Iraq.

The problem is that your party, your entire cadre of ideological fellow travelers, can’t articulate any genuine, principled reasons to be against this war. Because you have no moral authority. You spent it all in all the other Democrat wars.

So, you retreat into technical sniping. Armor. Planning. Funding.

Bullshit.

You criticize the Iraq war because your DNC string-pullers said so.

Here’s the essential point, Phinn.

Your party got us into this mess, over the loud and vocal objections of liberals. None of us think we should be there, but as long as our troops are there, we think they should have the best equipment and material. We’d rather have them home, but as long as they’re in the line of fire, let’s do all we can to protect them.

By the way, you may have noted at Rogers’ place that he does fundraising on the site and elsewhere for Fisher House, an organization that supports military families. Is that a lie, too?

You spent it all in all the other Democrat wars.

Nice to see you here, Senator Dole.

Phinn said,

January 11, 2007 at 17:35

That’s a mighty fine mirrored projector you got there.

Phinn can read minds and search our souls to find out what we really think about everything. What an amazing ability. Anyone who disagrees with him or his fantasies is lying. Anyone who says something accurate about the situation the neocons have put the United States in is lying. Miraculously, he is never wrong. He is never dishonest. Lo and behold, he is the only one with those abilities.

This small section of the America public, illustrated by Phinn, is depraved beyond belief.

Your party got us into this mess, over the loud and vocal objections of liberals. None of us think we should be there, but as long as our troops are there, we think they should have the best equipment and material. We’d rather have them home, but as long as they’re in the line of fire, let’s do all we can to protect them.

Cool. (Except the Republicans are not my party.)

Now, how exactly does that point support the notion that ‘chickenhawk’ is a meaningful, viable, authoritative, and effective term, when deployed by American lefty Democrats?

Lemme see if I have this right –
Phinn : 36 y.o. – so that means you were born in…1970, which means your personal knowledge of the 1960s is….0!

I sorta figured that, with all the stereotypes and drooling insanity.

By the way, you may have noted at Rogers’ place that he does fundraising on the site and elsewhere for Fisher House, an organization that supports military families. Is that a lie, too?

No.

which means your personal knowledge of the 1960s is….0!

But a minute ago, Shygetz said that I had to quit living in the past, that the 60s were over, etc … so which is it? That I’m too old, or that I’m too young?

Um, phinn, you need to lay off the phenfen.

The ‘crusade’ (ironic choice of words) against the Iraq invasion has very little to do with armor and planning. We were against this folly from the start, and only because we all knew it was an extremely bad idea put forward by extremely incompetent fools.

Your tired, hackneyed use of the hippy references are cute, but considering the fact that no one gives a shit about hippies anymore and that this war has nothing to do with cops, you sound phenomenally stupid.

I bet you believe we lost in Vietnam because we lost our ‘will’ to win, and that we were too ‘weak’ to be brutal enough to do what was ‘really needed to win’, and that this was all a direct result of the liberal media and ‘pig-screaming’ hippies.

Please, fix your combover, tuck in your enormous beer belly, wipe the cheeto stains off your hands, put your teeth back in, and roll your wheelchair back into the 50’s where you came from. I think the Lawrence Welk show is playing somwhere and you’re missing it.

… [T]he Democrat crusade against the Iraq invasion IS NOT GENUINELY MOTIVATED by concern over armor and planning. Maybe some of you are, and maybe some of you just think you are, but the rest are just using these points to disguise your REAL motivation.

The REAL motivation for this rhetorical campaign is being safely guarded by the leaders of your Party and its bankrollers

So, Phinn, your argument is that we know what our motivation is, but we don’t actually know what our motivation is, because our real motivation is a secret that Nancy Pelosi knows and we don’t? Wow.

She needs to get on the horn and tell me what’s motivating me, because I’m pretty sure my motivation is all of the stuff you just told me doesn’t motivate me.

The motivation for objecting to brutal police tactics in civil disturbances in the 60’s has no valid rational connection to desiring A) that the leaders of our country NOT commit our military (not to mention brothers, sisters, sons and daughters) to an illconsidered, poorly planned and executed war that has no defined purpose and no definable goals; and B) that once thay have made the foolish decision to do so, that they AT A MINIMUM provide adequate equipment, food and shelter to the Americans that have been sent to do an impossible and endless job.

And THAT whole argument is entirely separate from the Chickenhawk thing.

Give up on the “Dirty Hippies” fear, Phinn. They were never that powerful, they weren’t really dirty, and they were RIGHT about these issues more often than the neocons and the Republican Party.

which means your personal knowledge of the 1960s is….0!

Exactly. Phinn seems to have bought into the right-wing myth of protestors spitting on returning soldiers. Sociologist Thomas Beamish did a thorough review (Google for it) of news reports on antiwar protests and returning soldiers and showed this simply didn’t happen. (Which makes sense. Think about it — would a scrawny hippie like Abbie Hoffman dare attack a battle-hardened Marine? That’s the way it always happens in those urban legends, with the Marine sadly slinking away after the 95-pound weaking spit on him. Makes no sense at all.)

Phinn, maybe you should stop with the mind-reading and making shit up, and actually read up on what liberals did then and what we want now. It won’t be as entertaining as Rush makes it out to be, but it will have reality on its side.

The ‘crusade’ (ironic choice of words) against the Iraq invasion has very little to do with armor and planning.

Tell that to the guy who wrote Catwoman. And to Gavin, who links Mr. Catwoman’s armor-and-planning post so gleefully.

Your tired, hackneyed use of the hippy references are cute, but considering the fact that no one gives a shit about hippies anymore and that this war has nothing to do with cops, you sound phenomenally stupid.

Tell that to the guy who wrote Catwoman. And to Gavin, who links Mr. Catwoman’s armor-and-planning post so gleefully.

I bet you believe we lost in Vietnam because we lost our ‘will’ to win, and that we were too ‘weak’ to be brutal enough to do what was ‘really needed to win’, and that this was all a direct result of the liberal media and ‘pig-screaming’ hippies.

We lost in Vietnam because the NVA was being funded by enormous Communist states who, at that point, had not yet so fully collapsed their economies that the had the ability to throw an enormous amount of money and munitions into securing a Communist victory. The outcomes of most wars are predictable if you look at the economics.

It’s remarkable that, since then, the government of the Soviet Union disintegrated, and that of China and Vietnam implemented fundamental pro-market reforms that have helped save them from similar outcomes.

Please, fix your combover, tuck in your enormous beer belly, wipe the cheeto stains off your hands, put your teeth back in, and roll your wheelchair back into the 50’s where you came from. I think the Lawrence Welk show is playing somwhere and you’re missing it.

How old are you?

Awright, Phinn, let’s give you a taste of your own medicine.

Those of you who support the Iraq war are the “intellectual and ideological descendants” of the folks who supported the war in Vietnam, the ones who believed Communism was going to take over the world, and the ones who yelled at aforesaid hippies to “cut your hair” and “get a job.”

I’m going to tell you, with no supporting evidence, that you are responsible today for all those who opposed the Civil Rights movement and thought bombing Cambodia was a good thing. What are you going to do about it? To whom are you going to apologize?

And I’m doing this because it is precisely what you have just accused us of, and claimed to know. You accuse us of wanting U.S. troops to die, because that’s what you believe the “dirty hippies” wanted during Vietnam, and you provide no proof one way or the other. You also claim to have a greater knowledge of our motivations than we do. Thus, I claim that you want and need a bogeyman to fight outside the country. It was Communism and the “domino effect” back during Vietnam and it’s “Islamofascists” and a similar “domino effect” right now.

In both cases, these are unsupported assertions and as such, have no value in an argument beyond the rhetorical.

In short: Proof, or STFU.

once thay have made the foolish decision to do so, that they AT A MINIMUM provide adequate equipment, food and shelter to the Americans that have been sent to do an impossible and endless job. And THAT whole argument is entirely separate from the Chickenhawk thing.

My point exactly.

Now, tell it to the guy who wrote Catwoman. And to Gavin, who links Mr. Catwoman’s armor-and-planning post so gleefully.

Thus, I claim that you want and need a bogeyman to fight outside the country. It was Communism and the “domino effect� back during Vietnam and it’s “Islamofascists� and a similar “domino effect� right now.

I agree … as to pro-war Republicans. You seemed to miss the part where I said I was against the Iraq war.

The war in the Balkans is a prime example of setting up a bogeyman to justify an unnecessary foreign war — we dropped a few thousand tons of explosives to depose a dictator half a world away who posed no security threat to the US, on the basis of intelligence that later proved to be exaggerated or false.

Were you still in high school when that one was going on? Junior High?

Gavin’s linking of Rogers’ post is not a support of the Chickenhawk argument, it’s a refutation of Ace’s demand that as liberals, we are obligated to go fight in Afghanistan because someof us supported that military action.

It’s Ace that thinks this in some way defends the Chickenhawk argument. Go argue with him.

And please, stop trying to malign Rogers by incessantly inserting references to his work into your references to him. It is a weak effort to imply that because he’s been involved in less than stellar efforts, that his opinion is in some way lesser. Or is it some misplaced jealously because he’s actually, you know, a WORKING writer?

In any case, why aren’t you over there arguing with him? Your beef seems to lie there more than here.

In any case, why aren’t you over there arguing with him? Your beef seems to lie there more than here.

He’s fighting us here so he doesn’t have to fight Rogers there. Or something.

You seemed to miss the part where I said I was against the Iraq war.

And yet, you spend considerable amounts of time supporting the architects and supporters of the war, without criticism of their policies.

Thus serving as an example of the inverted axiom “With enemies like you, who needs friends?”

I find it interesting that, rather than address any of the points made here regarding the label chickenhawk (other than to admit that you have no knowledge of the ’60s, and are therefore erecting and attacking an irrelevant strawman as a distraction from the point), you instead ignore them and attack an article from another site that constituted a one-word link here. Even when multiple other lines of refutation to Ace’s comments are pointed out, you ignore them (and then proceed to demonstrate your Kreskinesque abilities to read our minds and see our true motivations).

I personally think that the term chickenhawk is valid for different reasons than Roger. The fact that the neocons have abandoned their commitment to the troops they fielded makes them unmitigated assholes without a shred of redeeming quality. The fact that they demand a war that they are not willing to fight at a time when the military is in desperate need of able bodies due almost solely to the war they advocate makes them chickenhawks.

The fact that some of them then accuse the soldiers in Iraq of being too pampered (I’m talking to you, Michael Ledeen) is just unfathomable. I was never taught a derogatory title sufficient for such assholery. I blame the public school system for this lack in my education.

Gavin’s linking of Rogers’ post is not a support of the Chickenhawk argument, it’s a refutation of Ace’s demand that as liberals, we are obligated to go fight in Afghanistan because someof us supported that military action.

Ace’s demand that liberals go fight in Afghanistan is a response to the Chickenhawk “argument.” Therefore an attempt to “refute” this response is a support of your original position. Negating the responding argument is a form of supporting your argument.

Idiot.

Only, Gavin’s response (cribbed from the guy who wrote The Core … Jesus Christ! What a turd!) isn’t actually a response, inasmuch as he tries to cobble two ideas together — the chickenhawk label and the complaints about armor and planning– without even making a real effort.

Even YOU stated that they have nothing to do with each other.

But Mr. Catwoman’s fans (including Gavin) apparently just like the sound of someone pretending that the armor-and-planning arguments somehow lend credibility to the ‘chickenhawk’ label. Clap clap. Fawn fawn. I’m all a-twitter.

Maybe you think they are both of these lines of thought, though unrelated, are so filled with Lefty-outrage goodness that, hey! — two great tastes go great together. Why not run with it? “You’re chickenhawks because the troops need body armor!”

If you shine the light on it, this makes no sense. As you yourself said.

I believe the words of the late Bruno Kirby can illuminate the futility of arguing with people like Ace, Phinn, and their troglodyte ilk:

“Shut up! Just shut up! He doesn’t get it! He’ll never get it! It’s been 4 hours! The cows can tape something by now! Forget about it please!”

rather than address any of the points made here regarding the label chickenhawk …,

Name one. Other than the linked one.

I personally think that the term chickenhawk is valid for different reasons than Roger.

Finally, an honest and substantive comment!

The fact that they demand a war that they are not willing to fight at a time when the military is in desperate need of able bodies due almost solely to the war they advocate makes them chickenhawks.

Great. Now, which wars, in the last 15 years, have you both supported and fought in? Which have you supported and not fought in?

Great. Now, which wars, in the last 15 years, have you both supported and fought in? Which have you supported and not fought in?

Ace’s argument doesn’t really refute anything regarding the chickenhawk argument.

The Afghanistan fight never was posed as a Clash of Civilizations, as well as never posing the same threat to the integrity of America’s military by overextending it and needlessly exposing our soldiers to danger.

Idiot.

I have supported no American wars of the last 15 years. I opposed all of them at the time, and stand by those decisions today. Hell, let’s say 60 years.

(The only reason I say “American” wars is that I don’t want to rule out the possibility that someone, somewhere in the world, fought a war in self-defense that might have been justified. I’m only talking about the wars that I pay for, which are fought on the pretense that they are fought in my behalf.)

Nowhere does he squarely and effectively address the hypocrisy of the Democrats’ support of Afghanistan, Kosovo, Somalia, and every other Democrat-backed war with their childish insistence on calling their political supporters ‘chickenhawks.’ Nowhere does he, or you, ever explain how such a label is not equally applicable to every Democrat who loves Democrat wars.

Back in your first post, you wrote this, and what the heck, I’ll bite.

I do not buy the chickenhawk argument as initially formulated, that is “you like this war, whyncha go fight it, huh? Huh?” There’s a volunteer army, and having opinions about what it should be doing or not doing is not cowardly in itself. Arguments about hypocrisy are fun, but are ad hominems and never to the point. I think I’m with you to an extent, yes?

However, I think the chickenhawk argument, uh, flies now because the military is hurting for bodies. Simply put, if you think this war is important, you should be looking into service, because people are hurting far more than they should be to keep the fucking boondoggle going. So yes, Ace is a fucking coward based on the importance he puts on the war and his unwillingness to get off his ass for it.

Via this formulation Kosovo and Somalia do not merit chickenhawk screeching, at least as far as I remember the situation at the time.

Afghanistan might be a different matter: there are foreign armies to join if you think fighting the Afghans is a hot-shit idea.

The way phinn keeps naming off the movies Rogers’ has either worked on or written, I’m gonna make a guess that we have an embittered, unsuccessful writer with one big ax to grind against a writer who’s actually had things produced.

Or a very dissatisfied movie goer.

So Phinn, you’re a Pacifist Rightie? Must be lonely.

Or just the First Concern Troll of 2007?

Great. Now, which wars, in the last 15 years, have you both supported and fought in? Which have you supported and not fought in?

As Bubba so righteously put it, at no other time in the past 15 years has the volunteer army been on the verge of collapse for need of new recruits. So, the point is moot; it is now that the need for soldiers to continue to prosecute this war is so acute, the chickenhawk label becomes valid.

If we need more volunteers to fight this war (and we do), and if you believe this war is essential to the well-being of the nation (which I don’t, but others apparently do), THEN it is your duty to volunteer for the war.

Simple enough?

“random_guy said,

January 11, 2007 at 11:07

Man it’s always disturbing to see a first picture of these nuts, and to find out they’re so much older than you’d assume. Reading ace’s posts, it’s impossible not to picture a 15-year old acne-ridden basement dweller, railing hormonally about all his imagined ‘enemies’.”

I envisioned this moron as a 20 something who had a subscription to “Guns and Ammo” and “Custom Combat Handguns” (yes that’s an actual publication, as my roommate has issues). Worked out WAY too much and fetishized martial arts masters.
This guy’s an old, doughy wanna-be who wants “libruls” to fight his war.
Projection, much?

Phinn, you’re bending so far over backwards I’m surprised you’re not in the ER by now.
If you think this war is important (which you say you don’t) and we need more people to execute it you should sign up. Not YOU per se, as you say you don’t support it, but those who do should be lining up. IT’S. THAT. SIMPLE..
There’s no rhetorical rangling here. If you think it’s righteous and the country needs you, you go. Or you’re a CHICKENHAWK.
Fuck, could it be any simpler?

I do not buy the chickenhawk argument as initially formulated, that is “you like this war, whyncha go fight it, huh? Huh?�

In this, the real world, that’s the same thing as it is now formulated, your meandering re-definitions notwithstanding.

However, I think the chickenhawk argument, uh, flies now because the military is hurting for bodies. Simply put, if you think this war is important, you should be looking into service, because people are hurting far more than they should be to keep the fucking boondoggle going. So yes, Ace is a fucking coward based on the importance he puts on the war and his unwillingness to get off his ass for it.

This is even weaker than the original ‘chickenhawk’ epithet. First, the military has to change some things around to raise more soldiers, but that’s its job, and it’s nothing new. It’s not “hurting” in that sense. To the extent it is “hurting” for manpower, it’s because the modern American military is an enormously inefficient government bureaucracy (but I repeat myself) that uses 95% of its manpower for support services just to deploy one man with a gun to the field. Second, the idea that your fellow-lefties’ original line of “argument” (it’s not; let’s call it what it is: propaganda) was invalid once, but now the very same word or phrase suddenly acquires new meaning and validity, while not changing in any way on the surface, because of the degree of difficulty of the logistical shift in management of the military’s organizational resources, is just stupid.

Via this formulation Kosovo and Somalia do not merit chickenhawk screeching, at least as far as I remember the situation at the time.

Of course you’d think this. You will apparently say ANYTHING to distinguish between these two misadventures, in an obvious attempt to exonerate Clinton-war supporters (you included?) and condemn Bush-war supporters.

Distinction without a difference.

So, the point is moot; it is now that the need for soldiers to continue to prosecute this war is so acute, the chickenhawk label becomes valid.

Same bullshit as the other guy. You guys compare talking points memos this morning or something?

Besides, where were you when your fellow travelers were slinging around the ‘chickenhawk’ label a few days/weeks/months ago, during this supposed Invalid-Chickenhawk Period?

By the way, on what day did the Invalid-Chickenhawk Period come to an end and the Valid-Chickenhawk Period begin? What are the economic criteria for distinguishing between the transition from an Invalid-Chickenhawk Period to a Valid-Chickenhawk Period?

The way phinn keeps naming off the movies Rogers’ has either worked on or written, I’m gonna make a guess that we have an embittered, unsuccessful writer with one big ax to grind against a writer who’s actually had things produced. Or a very dissatisfied movie goer.

Just a movie fan with a functioning sense of smell. Jesus H, did you people not see either one of these piles of flaming dog crap? Good Lord!

So Phinn, you’re a Pacifist Rightie? Must be lonely.

I’m neither a pacifist nor a rightie, but no, it’s not lonely at all to (a) be against this war (and the others) and (b) hate the Left. You should get out more.

What are the economic criteria for distinguishing between the transition from an Invalid-Chickenhawk Period to a Valid-Chickenhawk Period?

Ah, a libertarian. The “economic” criteria is the volunteer army’s inability to field the fighting force required for the time required to successfully complete the mission objectives, in the educated opinion of the commanders. We had no such problems in the wars of the previous 15 years (you disagree? cite, please). We have such a problem now.

To the extent it is “hurting� for manpower, it’s because the modern American military is an enormously inefficient government bureaucracy

Yeah, we should privatize war!

By the way, the other guy and I also agree that the Earth orbits around the Sun. We must be reading the same heliocentric talking points.

Instead of addressing truncated facades in place of the simple argument, why don’t you refute the entire thing, point by point. Here it is again, in case your breadth of memory is as small as your depth of understanding:

If we need more volunteers to fight this war (and we do), and if you believe this war is essential to the well-being of the nation (which I don’t, but others apparently do), THEN it is your duty to volunteer for the war.

Phinn’s a fisher.

Looking for that elusive Marlin, and ending up with catfish.

Your arguments are illogical, ad hominem and have no substance.

You haven’t answered the central question yet, only offered circular logic, strawmen and every other rhetorical trick to deflect the obvious flaw in your argument.

If you support this war, and the war needs, NEEDS more people on the ground (and put “the Army is an inefficient bureaucracy that can’t field effectively the troops needed blah blah blah”) bullshit to bed and address the situation. It is what it is, and all your rationalizations and verbal flip-flops don’t change reality.
CHICKEN. HAWKS.
If you support the effort, put up or shut up.
If “Ace” doesn’t get that he’s a cowardly idiot, and no amount of mindless blogging on your part can change that simple fact.

The “economic� criteria is the volunteer army’s inability to field the fighting force required for the time required to successfully complete the mission objectives, in the educated opinion of the commanders.

So, then, you should have no trouble pinpointing the day on which the use of the term ‘chickenhawk’ became valid.

It was invalid before, but now it’s accurate. On what day did this miraculous change in meaning occur?

If we need more volunteers to fight this war (and we do), and if you believe this war is essential to the well-being of the nation (which I don’t, but others apparently do), THEN it is your duty to volunteer for the war.

This makes no sense. Or, more precisely, this argument does not support your proposition (that the term ‘chickenhawk’ has somehow metamorphosed from invalid to valid).

I’ll break it down for you.

A. We always need volunteers to fight every war. The only alternatives to this economic necessity are to not fight it at all, or to press people into service, i.e., a slave army. I’m against slave armies. (So far as I know, the only one beating the drum for a slave army is Mr. Rangel (D-NY), and as far as I can tell, he is doing so purely for short-term opportunist political benefit.)

B. To solve this problem of voluntary manpower, military organizations do what they have ALWAYS done — offer various things, such as a salary, retirement benefits, and intangibles like patriotism or whatever. This is how we got the pre-Iraq military forces in the first place. This is how the Romans got their army. This is how Washington got his army.

C. Everyone who supports a war says that it is essential to the well-being of the nation. You still have not answered my question — which wars have you supported but not fought in?

D. If the military needs more troops and resources to accomplish its mission(s), it either needs to shift people from its bases all over the world (i.e., increase its efficiency), train some of the 95% of non-combat troops to become combat troops, or offer more money and intangible benefits to new recruits. Wars cost money, usually more than projected, this one being apparently no exception. At some point, people will decide that the costs are too high. The morality of war is usually not a part of this calculation, except perhaps as window-dressing.

E. Therefore, there is no difference (in terms of the validity of the chickenhawk label) between now and any other military campaign ever fought.

Phinn is apparently against the war. So are most of us here.

He will not fight the war. Neither will he work against the war.

So, I guess, he decides to just wait for someone to mention John Rogers, so he can piss and moan about the opinions of someone who ….well, had something to do with some bad movies.

If Phinn is not a wingnut, he certainly qualifies as a Master of Wingnut Debate.

Does anyone, other than the voices in Phinn’s (or Gary’s) head, understand what he’s trying to argue?

He hates liberals, but he’s not a conservative. He hates the chickenhawk label being used against war supporters, but opposes this war.

I guess this is the kind of rhetorical twist you can invent if you’re 36 and, by all appearances, jobless. Or Christopher Hitchens.

” You still have not answered my question — which wars have you supported but not fought in?”

World War II. But then, I was born over a decade after the end of it, so my efforts would have been negligible.

In this, the real world, that’s the same thing as it is now formulated, your meandering re-definitions notwithstanding.

All I’m saying is that it’s not an argument I would make, it’s not an argument I did make, and I didn’t agree with it when it was made under that definition. But closer to your point, arguments over what makes a chickenhawk are all about finding an excuse to use a fun word like chickenhawk. I support the use of the word when I believe it’s appropriate and that’s that. If you want to keep the thing solidified in amber, and if you’re trapped into thinking that gay will forever mean happy, enormity horror, and so on, I salute your fortitude.

This is even weaker than the original ‘chickenhawk’ epithet.

Whatever.

First, the military has to change some things around to raise more soldiers, but that’s its job, and it’s nothing new. It’s not “hurting� in that sense. To the extent it is “hurting� for manpower, it’s because the modern American military is an enormously inefficient government bureaucracy (but I repeat myself) that uses 95% of its manpower for support services just to deploy one man with a gun to the field.

Ah. The army should be more efficient, therefore a manpower problem is something that does not apply to arguments about whether the war-enthused might consider serving. Well done. When your volunteer fire department comes to your burning home with less firefighters than are necessary, you might want to suggest that the first thing they do the next day is reorganize.

Second, the idea that your fellow-lefties’ original line of “argument� (it’s not; let’s call it what it is: propaganda) was invalid once, but now the very same word or phrase suddenly acquires new meaning and validity, while not changing in any way on the surface, because of the degree of difficulty of the logistical shift in management of the military’s organizational resources, is just stupid.

It’s an insult, you shit-sucker, not a tablet handed down from Moses.

Of course you’d think this. You will apparently say ANYTHING to distinguish between these two misadventures, in an obvious attempt to exonerate Clinton-war supporters (you included?) and condemn Bush-war supporters.

I wondered why I felt itchy. It’s because I’m made of straw.

Neither will he work against the war.

No, I will not work against the war using the ideas, methods and rhetoric of the Left.

You all do yourself, and the anti-war cause, a disservice by adopting and perpetuating these things. It appears that you do so because you are hemmed in by recent history, much as the Congressional Democrats in 2003 were hemmed in by THEIR own comments about Iraq and Saddam Hussein during the time Clinton was in office, and even during the first Gulf War, which I opposed and most Democrats supported. It was the reason that Kerry in 2004 could not formulate a strong, principled position on Iraq other than “I’d do it better,” which (apart from his general buffoonery) was why he could not ever have won.

Accordingly, they, and now you, have had to retreat to a tiny zone of rhetorical comfort — the mechanics of prosecuting the war were faulty, armor and planning, yadda yadda yadda.

I’m trying, Marc, I’m trying.

Phinn has been consistent in his comments regarding opposing the war; Folks here (including myself) jumped to the conclusion he was one of Ace’s trollsies, come to argue about our treason for lck of eagerness to kill brown people.

I guess he still might be one of Ace’s pals, but I can’t imagine the anti-war stance goes down very good over there.

He’s also consistently brought up some of the movies that John Rogers did work on, as if working on a bad movie is some kind of moral failing. Reagan and Schwarzenegger might disagree.

He does make some argumetnative points about Rogers’ Chickenhawk post; but these get kind of obscured in a flurry of straw men and dirty hippy references, so it’s kind of tough to see if they cohere. But I’m thinking that his basic beef is that, although he opposes the war, he also opposes the term chickenhawks, and since he also opposes what he views as The Left (apparently he has S,N! confused with HFPST) he is trying to tie the three together; war, chickenhawks, and the Left. In much the same way you might try to create an argument tying Freezer burn, gremlins, and marsupials together.

Ya gotta help us out here, Phinn. I think we may actually agree on some things, but since we’re Teh Left, are you unable to face that?

� You still have not answered my question — which wars have you supported but not fought in?�

World War II. But then, I was born over a decade after the end of it, so my efforts would have been negligible.

Did you support any of the wars that the US fought since you were an adult?

It’s real simple. Black or white. Up or down.

“…which I opposed and most Democrats supported. It was the reason that Kerry in 2004 could not formulate a strong, principled position on Iraq other than “I’d do it better,â€? which (apart from his general buffoonery) was why he could not ever have won.

Accordingly, they, and now you, have had to retreat to a tiny zone of rhetorical comfort — the mechanics of prosecuting the war were faulty, armor and planning, yadda yadda yadda.”

See, now here’s a place of agreement. Most here agree that Kerry fomred a weak position on Iraq in 2004 (which is much stronger now, by the way) and that a strong, principled stand against the war would have fared better. Unfortunately, the election consultants advising the campaign have been buying the Rightwing spin on War for twenty years, and counseled against such a path.

But where you err, is in the other two parts of the quote. First of all, some Democrats supported Gulf War I, but not all, and conflating Democrats with The Left is just disingenous. Most Democrats, especially at the time, were barely center-moderate, if not Republican Lite.

Secondly, the argument about preparing our troops is not a fallback ‘safe’ position halfway between support for the war and opposition; presenting it as such is certainly a false dichotomy.

It is a specific criticism of the failure of the people who have elected to pursue, support and prosecute this war to do so in a way that protects and supports the Americans who have volutneered to fight on our behalf. The fact that they are volunteers does not negate our country’s responsibility to support them fully and appropriately, regardless of the political aspects surrounding the war. This is an important part of Rogers’ essay.

Most of the commenters around here have vocally opposed the same wars you have, and probably done it more vigorously, but when against all argument the military has been committed, they also argue for proper equipment and planning, since that is our brothers and sisters out ther fighting and dying. That is not inconsistent.

Hey, we got a troll upgrade! This one, at least, you can argue with on a semi-reasonable basis.

I never heard the chickenhawk label used before the Iraq war. I always heard it used on people who were cheerleading for war, demanding it, and not on people who merely agreed with it or were trusting Bush to be right and honest about his reasons for pursuing it.

Phinn: Did you support any of the wars that the US fought since you were an adult? It’s real simple. Black or white. Up or down.

OK, I’ll bite. I was of fighting age in 1984, so…

Grenada: No.
Panama: No.
Gulf War I: No.
Somalia: No.
Kosovo: No.
Afghanistan: Yes.
Iraq: No.

What do I win?

I never heard the chickenhawk label used before the Iraq war.

In the context of war, maybe. Also denotes a man on the hunt for “chicken”: youthful male ass. Just adds to the flavour.

Right. And on the Foghorn Leghorn cartoon.

I was familiar with the word “chickenhawk” before the Iraq war, but said war was the first time I’d heard it in use. And, Phinn, I can even tell you when, in my opinion, the word became valid.

When US forces deposed Saddam Hussein and disbanded the Iraqi army without any viable plan for maintaining peace in the region, at that moment, both the military resources committed and the military resources available were unequal to the task at hand, and thereafter any rabid supporters of the war who haven’t jumped to the aid of the military have been chickenhawks.

Do I win something?

I can even tell you when, in my opinion, the word became valid.

Phinn disappeared completely up his own ass on that point.

As I remember it, ‘chickenhawk’ first referred to the civilian leadership in the Pentagon, White House, and Congress who were red-hot for war, but who had, almost to a man, avoided serving in Vietnam.

It was invalid before, but now it’s accurate. On what day did this miraculous change in meaning occur?

In my opinion, it was invalid before we invaded Iraq the second time. We had sufficient force to carry out the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan, but not the invasion and occupation of Iraq (and those who thought otherwise have since been proven wrong). However, chickenhawk is a subjective term describing hypocritical behavior (I know, Objectivists have a hard time with subjectivism, but you’ll have to get over it). One becomes a chickenhawk when one believes that a war is essential to national well-being, supports that war, believes that we do not have sufficient manpower to fight that war, and still refuses to volunteer. In doing so, he has stated that HIS life is too valuable to risk for the well-being of the nation, while continuing to insist that OTHERS go and fight in his stead.

As I stated before, in no other war in my lifetime have we had a critical shortage of manpower in our volunteer army (including others that I disagreed with, such as Grenada). Therefore, in my opinion, chickenhawk has not been previously applicable.

Point A of your breakdown is irrelevant–we do not have conscription now, so it is beside the point.

Point C is wrong–not every war that is supported is thought to be essential to our national well-being. Some are proposed for entirely altruistic motives (e.g. Darfur). Which wars I supported are irrelevant, both for reasons stated above and because the question is not whether I think I am a chickenhawk.

Point D shows a naive misunderstanding of the nature of the military. You want to shuffle people from other bases? Then who mans those bases? Think N. Korea is going to give us a time-out while we get Iraq sorted out? In true libertarian style, you underestimate the complexity of the real world in your fantasy scenarios. There is a reason why there has never been a successful libertarian government, why Heinlein was a science-fiction writer instead of a political operative, and why most philosophy departments ignore Objectivism.

Point E is an incorrect conclusion based on invalid premises. Never before in the post-conscription era have we fought a war where we could not field an army of sufficient size to win the war. Now, that has come to pass. Get with the times.

Point B suggests that, in your twisted way, you DO understand what we are talking about. Patriotism–that “intangible benefit”–is worth next to nothing to the chickenhawk patriots. Even though they think that we need more soldiers to win this vital war, it should be someone else, and not them. Their patriotism, which they trumpet so loudly, is worth a fart in the wind.

“Phinn said,
January 11, 2007 at 22:11

It’s real simple. Black or white. Up or down”

And thus the box you have put yourself in has been your rhetorical mistake.
Nothing is black or white, up or down.
This is one of the fundamental mistakes of the right: that everything can be argued or solved with polar decisions.
Life’s a lot more f’in complicated than that, and that type of simplistic thinking has caused a lot of problems, conflicts, wars, etc.
Oh no, am I grasping at the gray? Am I referencing “nuanced”?
Damn right I am. That’s life, and to think otherwise is intellectually lazy.

“Grenada: No.
Panama: No.
Gulf War I: No.
Somalia: No.
Kosovo: No.
Afghanistan: Yes.
Iraq: No”

There are just causes, and pursuits of conquest and ego and world perception. This list sums up the difference.
Next?
We have a winner!!!

One becomes a chickenhawk when one believes that a war is essential to national well-being, supports that war, believes that we do not have sufficient manpower to fight that war, and still refuses to volunteer.

The highlighted portion is obviously the critical element in your formulation. After all, every war means that someone’s life is going to be risked, and these wars are always supported by many others who do not fight themselves, including many Democrats, recently. (I seem to remember a vote on that … ). They can’t all be chickenhawks, can they, just for supporting a war in which they will not be personally fighting? Not unless to qualify as a non-chickenhawk, one can only support wars in which no one will risk death, I guess, as though we live in World of Warcraft, or something.

But what if the person in question, when faced with the evidence that a war he supported now requires more personnel (and money) than he initially believed? What if, in light of this new evidence, he supports the proposition that the solution to this practical, logistical, economic problem is that our forces should increase their manpower (and materiel, etc.). For this he supports more money to be devoted to the war effort. New budgeting, higher taxes, change in allocation of resources, and all that.

Is this not the same behavior — the same moral and political position — that this person had before the war started? That he would work to pay for it and others would fight? Those characteristics alone are not enough to make him a chickenhawk, as you say. So, how could it make him a chickenhawk when he supports solving this lack of sufficient resources by providing more resources?

I’m not saying that you have to agree with the particular decisions about men, dollars, and resource-allocation in every case, but as a moral and ethical principle, is supporting an increase in resources to deal with an increased risk not enough to keep from being a chickenhawk, in your estimation? If not, why?

I notice, Phinn that while eloquent in your replies you’ve yet to respond to any of my responses to your rants.
Regardless, this administration is the first in the history of the modern world to reduce taxes substantially in the middle of a very costly war.
This administration has created a class of war prisoners, “illegal combatants”, that has re-defined the jurisprudence of wartime rules.
This administration has suspended habeus corpus, an essential liberty on which this nation was founded, suspended only once before in a CIVIL War that involved slavery.
This administration has validated “pre-emptive aggression”, or should I say validated the concept when it suits certain western democracies. Should any other entity choose to exercise such option I suspect Bush would not think it “moral”, “wise” or legal.
It’s called bullshit. It’s existed for centuries and it’s not going away anytime soon. But as long as I breathe I’m gonna call it out.
Bullshit.

What is it with the wingnuts and the 60s? It’s like time stopped in 1960. Two hundred frickin’ years from now, there will still be morons in bow ties going on about how everything wrong in the world can be traced to the dirty fucking hippies.

Debased and deranged as he may be, Phinin does have a point. The difference between Dubya and Clinton is not that one is an imperialist and the other isn’t. The differences are (a) Clinton is from the economic hegemonist wing of the imperialist camp, and (b) Clinton was competent. Even in the 1990s, the press was fully on board the imperialist agenda. It is only Bush’s rank incompetence that have allowed the American people to begin to realize what is realy going on.

I notice, Phinn that while eloquent in your replies you’ve yet to respond to any of my responses to your rants.

That’s because you haven’t said anything substantive.

Nuance? Sure. Whatever. I happen to think that when you decide to ask (or, even worse, tell) thousands of people to risk their lives and kill thousands of others, you’d better be crystal fucking clear on whether you think it’s the right thing to do, or not.

But that’s me.

Besides, that’s not what we’re really talking about here. We’re talking about whether the whole ‘chickenhawk’ accusation is valid and meaningful, or if it’s awfully hypocritical for the accusers to even use it, considering that they, too, have the habit of supporting wars in which they do not fight (as long as a Democrat is preznit at the time).

Would you prefer your economic hegemonist imperialists to be more, or less, competent in achieving their economic hegemonist imperialist goals?

“Phinn said,

January 11, 2007 at 23:54

Nuance? Sure. Whatever. I happen to think that when you decide to ask (or, even worse, tell) thousands of people to risk their lives and kill thousands of others, you’d better be crystal fucking clear on whether you think it’s the right thing to do, or not.

But that’s me.”

You have no concept of irony. If you did, that statement alone would change you 180.
Sadly, you don’t have that self awareness.

it’s awfully hypocritical for the accusers to even use it, considering that they, too, have the habit of supporting wars in which they do not fight

It looks like you’re using a different definition of chickenhawk than everyone else. I’ve only seen it applied to actual war mongers, not to people who were just “supporters” (whatever that means). This has been pointed out to you more than once. You should address it. Why is your definition right and everyone else’s wrong?

I’m not saying that you have to agree with the particular decisions about men, dollars, and resource-allocation in every case, but as a moral and ethical principle, is supporting an increase in resources to deal with an increased risk not enough to keep from being a chickenhawk, in your estimation? If not, why?

You’re really missing the boat here trying to get hard and fast rules for this. There are obvious examples like Jonah Goldberg but it depends on how slippery your slope is. It will always raise the hackles of whichever warmonger you’re trying to shame, and that has a lot of utility. Precision is excellent in satire, but the collateral damage has value too.

So: feel free to nitpick at the selection of targets – so and so can’t serve because he has to clean grandma’s catheter every day and no one in the trailer park will help! – but it should be pretty goddamned obvious that there are reasonable targets out there. Ace is fond of Mencken, for instance, so when he gets squirmy he might try “Injustice is relatively easy to bear; what stings is justice.”

Looks like somebody’s hoping to get one a’ them Harris/Princess Bride/whatever awards.

A. It’s not a giant leap — it’s central to one of my points (which you failed to address) is that the Democrat crusade against the Iraq invasion IS NOT GENUINELY MOTIVATED by concern over armor and planning.

You speak (write) as though the two are mutually exclusive. I beg to differ; I think a giant leap is central to one of your points.

Cool. (Except the Republicans are not my party.)

How did I see that coming a mile away?

But a minute ago, Shygetz said that I had to quit living in the past, that the 60s were over, etc … so which is it? That I’m too old, or that I’m too young?

No, too young and too gullible. You’ve been trying to dress up your gullibility as age and experience.

Tell that to the guy who wrote Catwoman. And to Gavin, who links Mr. Catwoman’s armor-and-planning post so gleefully. (x3)

Armor-and-planning is not totally unrelated to “chickenhawk” rhetoric, but it is rather tangential. At most, one might say that if one isn’t going to sign up and put his own ass on the line, a war supporter should at least be willing to sacrifice (there’s that word!) the costs of giving the troops the armour to protect them. Especially since unlike the classic wars of maneuver and such, with well-defined front lines, in Iraq, everybody’s a target, even those who in the past would have been considered behind the lines (or REMFs). And it’s certainly less risky to oneself to pay for somebody else’s body armour than to enlist oneself, so it would seem to be the least one could do.

The war in the Balkans is a prime example of setting up a bogeyman to justify an unnecessary foreign war — we dropped a few thousand tons of explosives to depose a dictator half a world away who posed no security threat to the US, on the basis of intelligence that later proved to be exaggerated or false.

Were you still in high school when that one was going on? Junior High?

I was getting shipped overseas, twice. You? Oh, I know, you didn’t support that one, though.

Via this formulation Kosovo and Somalia….

Of course you’d think this. You will apparently say ANYTHING to distinguish between these two misadventures….

Just to clarify, do you mean distinguishing between Kosovo and Somalia, or between those and Iraq, which somehow equals two in your world?

Besides, where were you when your fellow travelers were slinging around the ‘chickenhawk’ label a few days/weeks/months ago, during this supposed Invalid-Chickenhawk Period?

I was right here. Go ahead, search for “chickenhawk”. Or even “chicken” or “hawk”. I dare you. I double dog dare you.

Just a movie fan with a functioning sense of smell. Jesus H, did you people not see either one of these piles of flaming dog crap? Good Lord!

Hell no, I didn’t. I’ve got more taste than that, but also enough sense not to go too heavy on criticism of moview I haven’t seen. Which do you lack, taste or sense?

It looks like you’re using a different definition of chickenhawk than everyone else. I’ve only seen it applied to actual war mongers, not to people who were just “supporters� (whatever that means). This has been pointed out to you more than once. You should address it. Why is your definition right and everyone else’s wrong?

I see no real moral difference between supporting a proposition and advocating it. I realize that the mongers may attract more attention than the supporters (until election night, that is). But I’m really more interested in the schema people use to arrive at conclusions of right and wrong, the decisional criteria and methodology. Whether that decision-making process plays out silently in your head, or on the editorial page of a newspaper or website, the propriety of the decision-making process and the validity of the conclusions reached therewith are the same.

Not that it’s relevant to this debate anyways, but I’m fairly that Rogers got a writing credit for Catwoman even though there’s only one scene in the movie that had anything written by him. And Transformers hasn’t even come out yet, so how is that an insult?

I see no real moral difference between supporting a proposition and advocating it.

I have to know what you mean by “supporting” for this to make any sense. Also you seem to be putting under the heading of “the proposition” a wide range of military activities from what was basically a peacekeeping action in Somalia, to a special forces and airpower war in Afghanistan, to a full-on war of imperial aggression in Iraq, and I’m sorry, those are not equivalent situations.

But I’m really more interested in the schema people use to arrive at conclusions of right and wrong, the decisional criteria and methodology. Whether that decision-making process plays out silently in your head, or on the editorial page of a newspaper or website, the propriety of the decision-making process and the validity of the conclusions reached therewith are the same.

Again, this shit has no meaning to me. Maybe it would fly at Crooked Timber?

Kee-rist, am I the only one who had to work all day? I hate when I miss this much . . . um . . . “argument.”

What I’ve gleaned: Phinn is an irritable underachiever whose sole mission in life is to keep talking until everyone else dies. Righteous Bubba and lemonheads (among others) remain my heroes for giving the Phinns of the world the benefit of the doubt by taking his (her? its?) arguments more seriously than they deserve.

I agree, mortician.

People like Phinn learned a few words in high school for the SATs, and now they think they are all smart-like.

I really can’t tell what Phinn’s point is. S/He doesn’t seem to address anything anyone is saying here, and then ends with

I see no real moral difference between supporting a proposition and advocating it. I realize that the mongers may attract more attention than the supporters (until election night, that is). But I’m really more interested in the schema people use to arrive at conclusions of right and wrong, the decisional criteria and methodology. Whether that decision-making process plays out silently in your head, or on the editorial page of a newspaper or website, the propriety of the decision-making process and the validity of the conclusions reached therewith are the same.

WTF? Is this Jeff Goldstein?

WTF? Is this Jeff Goldstein?

Only if cocks and slapping are involved…

[…] Sadly, No! » From Case File: Smelt It v. Dealt It […]