College Republicans – those hale, hearty, and wealthy young ones who will be the next generations Limbaughs, Hannitys, etc. are staging rallies endorsing the idea of to “Finish the Job!”. One wonders if these young bucks truly believed in finishing the job they’d be all that they could, etc.
“Free Speech for me, but not for thee!” appears to be the Liberal rallying cry.
“those hale, hearty, and wealthy young ones”
Once again, why are you using wealthy as a perjorative? And FYI, at least at the university I attended, where for a time I was a member of the college republicans, most of the members were solid middle class folks. The college dems actually had quite their share of trust fund kids believe it or not. Ironic, that.
Peedro, you keep saying the Armed Forces are 80% Republican, but you have never posted any proof of this. How about some proof, or are you just MSU again?
Pedro,
Fat jokes? Really? Have we devolved to that point? Next you’lll say that Oliver’s momma needs to join the army.
Please.
80% republican…? Where are you getting that figure from? No insult, I’ve just never heard that number before.
I think what OW is getting at is not an attempt to stifle their speech, but the fact remains that in previous drafts and wars the army is disproportionately lower class- the kind who don’t go into the army. The kind who go to England (Clinton) or to Texas (Bush) instead of fighting. In the civil war, you could literally buy your way out of the army.
The irony here is that these kids are telling folks to step into harms way but they, most likely, will never be shot at in their lives. Kinda like hiding behind a gang of biker goons before calling someone a jerk. You know you’ll never be in danger, so it makes your words seem a little on the dumb side.
Very weak. The whole stupid chickenhawk idea is very weak. Anybody can make a smart, enthusiastic endorsement of any position and it will be right or wrong based on the merits of the argument – not the biography of the arguer. Is your intellectual capacity so weak, your position so shallow that you are reduced to this cheap, faulty debating technique. Way to go young Republicans! Most sane Rs and Ds agree we need to finish the job.
Dugger
Free Speech for me, but not for thee! appears to be the Liberal rallying cry.
And again, the Republican cry is:
“I criticize what you say: that’s just my opinion
You criticize what I say: help! help! I’m being censored!”
Something must be wrong with Dr Pedro. Symptom one: obsessive posting on Oliver’s blog; symptom two: resorting to hysterical personal attacks on his host. Could be he’s just upset that the Bush mirage is unraveling. But it could be something far more serious that none of us knows anything about. Be gentle with him.
Well, yesterday I *was* censored for no good reason so you’ll excuse me if I’m a little touchy on the subject for the moment.
If you think the “chickenhawk” argument is a principled debate point worthy of consideration, fine. I’ll remember that next time a member of the loyal Opposition cries about not enough troops in Afghanistan or low recruitment levels.
“The irony here is that these kids are telling folks to step into harms way but they, most likely, will never be shot at in their lives.”
No, they’re not telling others to go to Iraq to stay at home. They’re simply supporting the mission of those who volunteer. If they were actually demanding that other people go to Iraq, you peddlers of this ridiculous meme might actually have a point.
On a related note, I expect Oliver to try out for the Washington Redskins any day now. Because as anyone knows, you can’t really support your favorite team unless you actually play for them.
Dugger – here’s one of my favorite quotes… just for you.
One of the most horrible features of war is that all the war-propaganda, all the screaming and lies and hatred, comes invariably from people who are not fighting. The P.S.U.C. militiamen whom I knew in the line, the Communists from the International Brigade whom I met from time to time, never called me a Trotskyist or a traitor; they left that kind of thing to the journalists in the rear. The people who wrote pamphlets against us and vilified us in the newspapers all remained safe at home, or at worst in the newspaper offices of Valencia, hundreds of miles from the bullets and the mud. And apart from the libels of the inter-party feud, all the usual war-stuff, the tub-thumping, the heroics, the vilification of the enemy all these were done, as usual, by people who were not fighting and who in many cases would have run a hundred miles sooner than fight. [& ] Perhaps when the next great war comes we may see that sight unprecedented in all history, a jingo with a bullet-hole in him.
George Orwell
Homage to Catalonia
Farris,
Maybe recruitment numbers and numbers in Afganistan wouldn’t be so darn low if we weren’t feeding our soldiers into the meat grinder that is Iraq…?
Just a thought.
One wonders if these young bucks truly believed in finishing the job they d be all that they could, etc.
“One wonders”, eh? What are you wondering about? Do you know how many of the demonstrators plan to go into the Armed Services? Or is the new “chickenhawk” meme going to be, “Drop everything you are doing, and go to Iraq, or you don’t really support the war?”
“Be all that they could be”? Are you jealous of young men who can actually seize an opportunity to explore their own interests, ans set new limits for themselves?
And “young bucks”? Where did that come from? The Sen. Clinton “plantation” speech?
A lot of freight loaded on that train, eh, Oliver?
“Finish the Job?”
Not so much, anymore.
The Bush Administration’s proposed budget for 2007 drops reconstruction funding for Iraq.
I think there’s a difference here between the Redskins metaphor and the tax payer metaphor. In both of those cases, we’re not talking life and death. (Except for maybe footballl, but I digress…)
The argument is that sending people off to their death should not be something taken lightly. Our troops at the moment have poor equipment (they’re just now upgrading the body armor) have poor planning (check the continually revised estimates for how long we’re there) and are fighting a never ending stream of insurgents. I’m all for military action, but going at it half-cocked will never work.
As for the legitmacy of the chickenhawk argument, I don’t think we should always reject the opinions of non-combat people, but there does seem to be an awful lot of combat veterans against and an awful lot of avoiders for. I mean, by Dugger’s logic, we should listen to Kerry and Murtha over Bush as they have seen combat and he has not.
rainlion,
Love Orwell but the chickenhawk argument is still stupid, no – very stupid, on the face of it. I doubt very many on the left actaully believe the argument themselves, but just hope it does some damage to the hated Bush. Is it really, really your contention that you must have served in the armed forces to support (or maybe be against ) the war. Does this mean you reject the war/cpmbat decisions of say FDR and Bill Clinton. Is, thereby, Oliver North’s judgement and support of war and combat more valid than Clinton’s?
Foidamore, can we assume that to support any program or activity you must have been, tyourself, a direct participant in that program or activity.
So, thereby, a person who pays taxes should have nnot only no voice in how taxes are spent but his r her argumments, per chickenhawk logic, invalid by definiton?
Come on, rain, it is utter stupidity and is nothing more than a harassing tactic of the left – devoid of intellectual merit. Admit it.
Dugger
wacked, it is actually more like saying,”If you don’t support your country’s goals, you don’t support your country.”
Remember, “My country, may she always be right. But, my country, right or wrong”?
You have a point about the chickenhawk idea, however one only needs read the following statement at the top of their website to see who the college republicans are really supporting.
“President Bush has ensured the safety of Americans by taking the fight to the enemy abroad before they have the opportunity to attack the homeland.”
Sounds like the usual prelude to the usual attack that if you dont support Bush you dont support the troops. Its the same old fallback position that his supporters have been using since the American public found out the truth about the reasons for going to Iraq in the first place. The republicans were trying to do this two years ago as a counter protest to the massive anti-war demonstrations and it didn’t work then. Same old song different verse.
If 80% of the military is republican, then why is it that something like 12 of 14 veterans planning to run in the 06 elections are running democrat?
And wes clark? And most of the veterans that are actually in congress.
Hmmmm?
Maybe it’s because the Republican vets are STAYING in the military while the Democratic vets are “cutting and running”, as it were…
Oh yeah still waiting on “proof” that the military is 80% republican.
No, you are wrong, Frank. I dont consider the war in Iraq one of “my countrys” goals, yours and W’s maybe but not mine. I believe we would have been better off to stay after the ones who attacked us. I believe it has taken the emphasis off Al Queda and OSB. Sounds like the usual line that if you dont support Bush, you dont support your country. I dont support Bush for the things he has done which I believe is not in our best interest, period.
Wolf, the democrats are running in the 06 elections that are veterans may have the same kind of attacks on their patriotism as the ones in 2002 and 2004. I guess your military service only counts if you’re neoconservative republican and/or support their agenda. At least you wont get “swift boated.”
LB,
“I mean, by Dugger s logic, we should listen to Kerry and Murtha over Bush as they have seen combat and he has not.’
You butchered the h*ll out of that. My argument is precisely that we should listen to all three and more, and judge the arguments on their own merits, not on the pedigrees of the arguers. Thats where the idiocy of the left’s position comes to fore: that somehow the arguments of a veteran coming out against the war should be immune to htought and scrutiny either completely or les so than anyone elde. BS!
The chickenhawk argument is stupid and weak.
Duugger, There, I said It Again
To paraphrase Al Franken; disagreeing with your country doesn’t mean you don’t love it. Liberals love this country like an adult loves their parents. We love it, acknowledge that its not perfect and try to help it. Arch-conservatives love this country like a child loves their parents. They’re perfect and anyone who thinks otherwise is just a… a… big MEANIE!
I love America. But saying that its always right in the face of a lot of evidence to the contrary doesn’t show love, it shows oblivousness.
Perfect. The “swiftboat” gambit in a nutshell.
http://64.233.187.104/search?q=cache:LIzKdF2Ht5AJ:www.militarycity.com/polls/2003_side1.php+army+times+republicans+democrats&hl=en&client=firefox-a
“About half described their political views as conservative or very conservative; four in 10 called themselves moderate; and only 7 percent called themselves liberal.
” More than half called themselves Republicans, and just 13 percent said they are Democrats. Recent polls of the general public show the nation evenly split, with Democrats, Republicans and independents making up about a third of the population each.”
Not that giving factual data helps around here, someone will just ridicule it for some asisnine reason without any sort of data.
“Foidamore, can we assume that to support any program or activity you must have been, tyourself, a direct participant in that program or activity.
So, thereby, a person who pays taxes should have nnot only no voice in how taxes are spent but his r her argumments, per chickenhawk logic, invalid by definiton?”
Soitenly!
You have proven nothing. The numbers on your Betros list say that 65% of OFFICERS (a small % of the military) were Republican registered in 1996. You ass-ume that the non-Democrats split evenly, or at all. Most were independents.
The Military Times link is equally fact challenged.
This isn’t a con blog, don’t peddle lies here and expect to be challenged, Junior.
You presented no facts, as usual. Again I had to school you. Those sites at best said 2/3 of OFFICERS are Republicans.
It was you who stated 80% of military are Republican, I showed again that you have posted sites that CONTRADICT that stat. So as usual, you whine like a little bitch.
I really doubt you were in the military. The military I know don’t brag about their service and throw it in people’s face, like it validates their lies. It doesn’t. So if you don’t like being owned, why don’t you go somewhere like FR where your lies won’t be challenged.
Like I said, I presented the facts, you present your completely uneducated opinion.
You have spent 0 time in the military. I doubt you have any friends that have spent any considerable time in the military, you present no data in support of your point of view.
Why not change your screen name to “opinion’s are like assh*les, everyone has one, have a look at mine…..”
This one gives more specific numbers…but only the officer corps
http://www.ndu.edu/library/n2/n00BetrosPoliticalPartisanship.doc
“. What was surprising, however, was the strength of the officer corps affiliation with the GOP. Sixty-four percent of the officers responding to the survey identified with the Republicans, whereas only about 8 percent claimed to be Democrats.”
so, 92% or so were claimed republicans or unclaimed and 8% claimed democrats. I split the unclaimed i50:50 and get about 80% republican.
so, now that I have proven it with data, does that mean you will admit you are wrong on the subject, and in fact it IS the republicans who are protecting your rights to play keyboard commando and gives us your uneducated opinions about things?
My rationale was clear, you present no data, again.
Damn, you are one dumb m’fer…..
factcheck, stop right there. When you tell people who were in the military, “I really doubt you were in the military. The military I know don t brag about their service and throw it in people s face, like it validates their lies,” you are making two huge mistakes.
1) We come to these boards as who we are; it is vicious to just demean someone by saying they are not who they say they are. Far worse than calling me “Frankie” or calling Doctor P “Dr Peedro.”
2) It is you liberals who constantly taunt us veterans when we refer to our personal military service, by screaming, “How do you know? Were you there?”
Further, the “Military you know” are probably liberals like yourself. You don’t confront them on a daily basis, questioning their integrity, their courage, their intelligence, their ability to think clearly, and you surely don’t bring up the military as a topic of discussion.
They wouldn’t want to discuss it either, for the same reason: Because you were’nt in the military, and they don’t want you to feel left out.
Maybe more importantly, who in the world would trust us?
I blame a large part of the relatively lukewarm response received in Iraq after the initial invasion on gulf war I. I mean, how many Kurds and sunni’s died after expecting the Abrahms to be coming over the hill?
After that sort of stutter step, I can certainly see why the populace would not be dancing in the street, they weren’t so sure we would be gone the next day.
Now as we begin to regain their trust, they get “Murtha’ized” (sort of like euthanized, but more painful), and they start wondering whether or not we are going to stay for the long haul. OBL knows that is on their mind too, so he starts quoting Murtha and all sorts of negative polls.
We stay until it is safe for the Iraqi’s to leave.
College Republicans – those hale, hearty, and wealthy young ones who will be the next generations Limbaughs, Hannitys, etc. are staging rallies endorsing the idea of to Finish the Job! . One wonders if these young bucks truly believed in finishing the job they d be all that they could, etc.
I can’t think of many people who think we need to pull an immediate retrograde from theater. I agree, we started it and we have to finish it. Regardless of the impetus for the action. Can you imagine NOT finishing the job after all of the sacrifices of the coalition and the Iraqi people?
Reporting. For. Duty.
Still waiting for that proof that the military is 80% Republican.
Really? I can honestly say I’ve never seen that. I have never seen anyone taunt an honest-to-god military veteran that way.
I have however, been on the receiving end of that taunt. As a dripping-fangs-hippie-peacenik, I’m well aware that a conservative’s first resort is to discount the opinion of anyone who’s not ready to dehumanize and execute the enemy of the day.
…in the rear with the gear.
join and find out for yourself……I did…..
Frankly, the whole Iraq War debate is a stupid joke. There is no “finishing the job” just as there is no “bringing our troops home” or “peace now”. The US has so little leverage over the Iraq conflict in either direction. The problem there is political and internal – Sunnis v. Shi’ite v. Kurds, centralism vs. confederalism, Islamism v. secularism, militia loyalty v. national loyalty, pro-Iran v. anti-Iran, pro-insurgency v. anti-insurgency, Neo-Baathist secular insurgent v. nationalist insurgent v. Iraqi Islamist insurgent v. foreign Islamist insurgent, etc. The presence or absence of US troops has so little to do with any of these questions anymore. We are a sideshow in a civil war and we have been since March 2003. The contours of that civil war have changed slightly over the last few years but the fundamental essence has not. Is there really an Iraq? What is the identity of that post-Saddam Iraq? That’s the real question. 500,000 troops or no troops, we can’t solve that question anymore. It’s out of our hands at this point.
Quaker
“I m well aware that a conservative s first resort is to discount the opinion of anyone who s not ready to dehumanize and execute the enemy of the day.”
Don’t feel like Custer, though, you make that remark on a site that is lathered copiously with charges of chickenhawk (a thoughtless means to discount opinions/arguments you can’t otherwise rebut) and on a site where people like frame deal in the grossest of character assassinations and taunts against conservatives.
Dugger
Thee is no civil war in Iraq. Civil war is two or more factions fighting for politcal dominance. The al-Queda (AQ) insurgents are politica/religious terrorists who oppose democracy. They are AGAINST an idea, not positing their own party or ideas (much like the libs in America).
I served in the Marines..I was a small unit leader with the 2nd marine Divisions during Desert Storm. The basic issue in the military is whether there is a mission to accomplish. Republican, democrat, independent…it doesnt matter. individuals may have their own opinion, but the bottom line is that their integrity, honor, and the honor of America is on the line and they carry on each day. Quoting 1996 registered voters is one of the most ludicrous polls ever conducted. 10 years later, most of those enlisted polled are no longer in the military.
The defining moment in Iraq was this past December and the elections. Right now, it is important that we provide stability…so that the Iraqi government can find its way. Coalitions are being assembled, megotiatins are taking place, deals are being struck, and the people of Iraq are beginning to prosper. To leave now is to guarantee failure.
And one more thing, we are winning. Winner don’t offer truces, but those on the ropes do.
Elrod nails it. We are trying to keep the lid on the civil war, but really don’t have enough troops to do it, plus, we add to the chaos by taking sides, trying to shape things, trying to loot, setting our troops up as targets for foreigners who slip into the country to take pot shots, and setting our troops up as targets for Iraqis who are now pissed at us for bombing them, torturing them or taking sides. It’s like Beirut again.
Midder, please explain how you came to the conculsion that we need more troops? it would seem contrary to your statements that they are targets…so the solution is to present more targets? If this were a war, you might be correct. however, this is an insurgency…not the same thing. We have taken no sides, and our troops have been killed by more than one faction. We are trying to shape democracy….you have issues with democracy?
“ President Bush has ensured the safety of Americans by taking the fight to the enemy abroad before they have the opportunity to attack the homeland.
No two ways about it: this is a coward’s argument. There is no proof– I repeat, no proof– nor was there ever proof that Iraq had any intention of attacking, or assisting those who would attack, the United States. Bush’s war in Iraq has nothing to do with protecting anything but the profits of the industries to which he owes his political (and financial) life.
So when these able-bodied “young bucks” get up and cheer the war without any intention of fighting in it, they prove themselves hypocrites and cowards at best, and craven, satanic manipulators at worst. If this is such a noble and vital cause, why aren’t they adding to the boots on the ground?
And to preempt the next illogical winger question that I’ve seen here, no, I’m not going to sign up. I offered my contribution to this war in early 2003, along with millions of others: DON’T START IT. My contribution was rejected out of hand, and now look at what we’ve got. So I think OW’s point is not ’stupid’, it is dead on. If you support this misbegotten adventure and you’re able to fight in it, then you should be fighting in it. These College Republican dorks are some of the same people who call us war protestors ‘cowards’ and ‘appeasers.’ Well, tough guys, your chance to prove yourselves is here. What are you waiting for?
One more thing: notice how the wingers and the corporate media don’t hype Pat Tillman anymore. Do you know why? I do.
The problem is , the place would be a blood bath now if we weren t there.
One might consider the existing situation a blood bath, based on the number of civilian deaths since Saddam was overthrown. I assume you mean even worse than it is now. That is a distinct possibility, but the question for the US is that will our staying longer make a difference other than just delaying the outcome? I don’t believe that the American soldiers who have died and been crippled for life in this war did so in vain. But it is also my concern that we could end up staying longer than we need to just to save face for a few politicians in Washington. That alone is not worth the life of one more American, period.
BW,
Not saying its good, but I don’t feel that the current situation is a ‘bloodbath’ (may be semantics, but if I think of bloodbath, I think of things like the Somme). OTOH, you raise a decent point as how long we stay and for what purpose. The neocon/Admin criteria for leaving is the degree of combat readiness of the Iraqi forces. The operative word part there is ‘readi” . They may be ready while we are there but will they be ‘ready’ a year after we leave? Two years? If Iraq then reverts, and fundamentalists take over, you might well see a retributive bloodbath – dwarfing the strife there now.
But here are very few acceptable alternatives at this point – other than to see it through.
Dugger