Actually, I do, too. Aside from the irony of the comment about throwing “chickenhawk” around it is a more reasoned and calm post than most from jmccann.

If the war had ended in a year then I think there would be far less objection to it. Not just because we wouldn’t be there now as Zython points out, but because a quick victory would have gone down well with the American public and would have overshadowed the doubts the objections that were shown at the start.

In the same way that those who predicted we’d be welcome as liberators and it would be over quickly try to change the subject when those (now clearly seen to be wrong) predictions are brought up, if it had been over fast those who were opposed to would tend to change the subject. “See, I told ya so that it would be over quick and not end in a quagmire.” could really only be answered “Yeah, but…” and nobody likes having to do that. Human nature.

That said, there was clearly no rational reason to expect the war would be over in a year, even if everyone here at home were strongly in favor of it. No significant plans were made beyond the initial stages, the reality of the ethnic/religious tensions were not considered and any who commented on the difficulty and time that would be involved were ignored. So playing with the hypothetical may be comforting but it doesn’t really help any view that actually deals with reality.

But “Marxist”? Oh, that it’s okay to throw around with abandon.

Stay “classy”, j.

Well, considering that if we had won in a year, we wouldn’t be in there now, I would have to say that’s irrelevant.

My god, think about the list of reasons to take out Saddam Hussein, and honestly, can you really say that at least THAT PART of this war has been beneficial, regardless of your original standpoint or current thoughts on it?

While I agree Saddam was a horrible person, unfortunately, that’s not the justification the administration was selling us.

j mcann, I appreciate this post. While I disagree with many points, I appreciate the maturity in which you presented your points. It has also given me a bit to think about (mainly the use of the term “chickenhawk”), as well as reminding me the importance of talking to someone rather than at them.

If we had won in Iraq w/in a year as originally stated, do you really think it would be as unpopular as it is now? I don’t. In fact, I think Iran would have no nuclear capalities if that were the case. We’d have hit them next. And my guess is that the people of this country would have supported that also.

You can make your case about Iraq and Afghanistan not being the same situation, but it doesn’t change anything when it comes down to the “chickenhawk” smear. As you stated, that’s your analysis, and I do disagree with it. My god, think about the list of reasons to take out Saddam Hussein, and honestly, can you really say that at least THAT PART of this war has been beneficial, regardless of your original standpoint or current thoughts on it?

Look, I just don’t think people should be so quick to throw “chickenhawk” out there. You never know when you might be the one believing in a war whose support falls within the general public.

Taking out the taliban was a noble cause, and I think taking out Hussein and trying to give Iraqis a chance at a civilized democracy is too.

Will it work? I don’t know…..but I think we’ve come too far to quit now, and with so many signs of improvement, backing out now would be horribly irresponsible, negligent, and damn near criminal on our part.

Thatisall.

Good day folks.

Now, since you don’t give a shit about the military unless it has to do with the arsenal, I can see why you might be confused as to why I don’t go. But let me explain something. When one signs up for the army, they don’t get to choose where they are deployed. The army puts them where they think they are needed.

Parthenon, very well done, but considering who we’re talking to, you might want to replace the following words with simpler ones:

casus belli
masterminded
community
for

The analogy between the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq is a bad one. Nobody needed to beat the war drums to go to war in Afghanistan – we were attacked, they were protecting the individuals who masterminded the attack. The international community got behind us, and domestic support was something on the level of 80%.

In Iraq, this is not so. There is no clear and obvious casus belli that is bipartisanly agreed upon (leaving aside the Democratic lambs in the Congress that obediently fell in line). This war produced, worldwide, the largest antiwar protests in history; domestic opposition was enormous from the outset and has generally grown. Since Iraq did not attack us, there was a need to beat the drums and whip up support. The word ‘chickenhawk’ refers to those who had not served but beat the wardrums for what many regard as an unnecessary war against a country that, while its power structure was hostile toward the United States, didn’t have the ability to attack us even if it had wanted.

To save you the trouble, here’s shorter me:

One war – clear and obvious casus belli, broad support. No drumbeat.

Other war – no clear and obvious casus belli, sharply partisan support. Very pronounced drumbeat.

You are of course free to disagree with this analysis, but you’re going to have a hard time making the case that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are analogous situations, two points on the same continuum.

Another cheapshot coming from a carless Marxist that rapes cute fluffy puppies and bunnies…..

“That’s the thing, I DON’T support the war in Iraq. There are many soldiers there that are doing their best because they think they can make a difference, and I commend their efforts. However, I am not so optimistic. I am not going to risk my life for a decision I wouldn’t have made myself.”

Then take your butt to Afghanistan! You said you support that war! LMAO! Chickenhawk Marxist!

Hopefully, you see how stupid your “chickenhawk” cheapshot is now.

Do you, or is that over your head? Or do you have too much pride to ever admit that it’s a lame, flawed argument that is on it’s best day nothing but a cheapshot used to smear those who see decisions on a war differently than you.

Either way, you look pretty foolish now.

I thought you guys were done being scandalized over the (gasp) middle eastern middle name. Or if you’re not scandalized I trust this means you refer to McCain as J. Sidney?

That’s the thing, I DON’T support the war in Iraq. There are many soldiers there that are doing their best because they think they can make a difference, and I commend their efforts. However, I am not so optimistic. I am not going to risk my life for a decision I wouldn’t have made myself.

If you aren’t happy with the hole you’ve dug when you insinuated that I was a chickenhawk,

Well, first off, I never said that, but go on…

I truly hope that “hope and change” can fill your gas tank if B. Hussein Obama gets elected.

Fortunately, I don’t have a car to fill up in the first place.

Here, it’s simple: Calling someone a chickenhawk is a bogus tactic. What you’re essentially saying is that no one has the right to an opinion on a war unless they’ve served.

I pointed this out earlier. Chickenhawk is used to describe the ultra-con bloggers that think that by blogging about the Iraq war, they are fighting in “the war of ideas”. It’s not just refusing to serve in a war they support to the point of near bloodlust, it’s also the arrogance of calling themselves soldiers as well. It’s having one’s cake and eat it too.

Look, Geezer, I can only imagine how much it must suck to be a sex offender, but you really shouldn’t take it out on us or the country.

Not surprising. Too many lack moral clarity. If a country harboring an individual/group of people that planned an attack that killed 3,000 innocent civilians isn’t worth waging war against, I’d like to know what is. Why don’t you tell me. To have done nothing would be sickening, and would also be a green light to islamic nutcases everywhere to attacks us when and wherever they want, because we’ll stand by and let it happen.

That’s simple, when Afghanistan was the only country we were fighting, I was too young to enlist.”

What’s stopping you now? You expect me to go to Iraq….why don’t you get your butt over there too, since you support it any everything. You don’t want to be a chickenhawk, do you? LMAO! Also not surprising that you were too young to enlist. I kinda figured I was talking to someone that thinks cars run on “hope and change.”

If you aren’t happy with the hole you’ve dug when you insinuated that I was a chickenhawk, I suggest you save face and retract it. You look more and more foolish with every duck and dodge on this issue, not to mention a oouple of lame cop-outs you’ve spewed.

Here, it’s simple: Calling someone a chickenhawk is a bogus tactic. What you’re essentially saying is that no one has the right to an opinion on a war unless they’ve served. If that were the case, you’d have nothing but current and ex-military members voting, and I don’t think you’d like the way that turned out. They’re heavily conservative. Just don’t throw the chickenhawk label around, because if one person is a chickenhawk, then we all are, unless by your logic, you’ve served and have earned the right to a view or opinion.

Get it? Good.

Glad I could help Marxist.

I truly hope that “hope and change” can fill your gas tank if B. Hussein Obama gets elected.

Because my position on the war has nothing to do with the point I was making: That you make things up, distort facts and refuse to answer questions while insisting others answer yours “now!” while hurling insults in nearly every post but claiming you’re “too classy” to do that.

The rightness or wrongness of the war I haven’t commented on.

And all the “Marxists” here know you’re far to classy a guy to hurl insults around.

Sheesh.

That’s simple, when Afghanistan was the only country we were fighting, I was too young to enlist.

Now, I have more class than to start throwing that insult around though.

Uh, no you don’t.

So why don’t you tell us all where you stand then.

I support it. There, you happy?

You haven’t said if you’re for it or against it. Wonder why.

Because some of us don’t feel the need to justify ourselves to an America-hating sex offender.

Now, I have more class than to start throwing that insult around though. I am not, was not, nor will I call you or anyone else a chickenhawk. The logic behind it is flawed. But I do think that anyone that is AGAINST particularly, the war in Afghansistan has a pretty warped world view, and is more than likely another self-loathing white liberal that thinks the USA is generally a force for evil in the world rather than a nation that took on a noble cause in removing the taliban from power as well as Hussein.

So why don’t you tell us all where you stand then.

You haven’t said if you’re for it or against it. Wonder why.

Where did I do that? I mean, don’t let the facts upset your fanatically held world view but, where did I ever say I was against the war in Afghanistan?

What I have said, repeatedly, is that you don’t know what your talking about and you make things up just so you can cling to your ignorant, simplistic views. Something you’ve continued to provide lots of support for with your last post just being the most recent example.

My god, you’ve outed yourself as a fucking loon. Even most lefty democrats support THAT war.

Congratulations, you’re crazy, and you’d be laughed out of the room by the vast majority of people in both political parties.

I think you really are a Marxist.

Where did I do that? I mean, don’t let the facts upset your fanatically held world view but, where did I ever say I was in favor of the war in Afghanistan?

jmccann: By that logic, anyone that has ever been for a war, no matter how popular or unpopular, is a chickenhawk.

No, supporting a war doesn’t make someone a chickenhawk (seriously, j, how many words do you not know the meaning of?). Someone who loudly declares their support for a war but refuses to DO anything other than toss words around while others make the actual sacrifices is a chickenhawk.