Some great advice on how to start your own business online! 
For more information please visit

Warblogger enlists in Army, wins argument

PASSAIC, NJ (Rooters) — Jordan Kulundzic, MD, won an argument about the Iraq war today by enlisting in the US Army.

Kulundzic, 34, a resident gastroenterologist at Passiac Beth Israel Hospital, also maintains the conservative blog "I’m All Right" (

Yesterday, that blog became the site of a heated political debate when a commenter, identified only the screen name “ihatebush209”, challenged Kulundzic’s support for the US-led invasion of Iraq.

"I wrote this really long essay about why I support the war in Iraq," Kulundzic said. "I thought I had covered every angle, including the need to be absolutely sure that Saddam had no WMD’s, the moral case for liberating the Iraqi people, and the long-term strategic importance of spreading democracy throughout the volatile Middle East."

“But then ihatebush209 just tore my arguments to shreds,” he said.

ihatebush209’s comment read, "Hey, mister Keyboard Kommando, if you like the war so much, why don’t you go and fight it, you little chickenhawk? Buc-buc-buc bu'CAW!!!"

Kulundzic remembers feeling dejected at seeing his efforts so easily dismissed.

"I felt terrible," he said. "That guy had me beat, fair and square. All my well-researched opinions on Iraq were worthless so long as I wasn’t personally fighting there. And those fake chicken noises made his counter-argument all the more effective."

But later that evening, Kulundzic recalls, he realized how he could win the debate. The next day, he enlisted in the Army, announcing his decision on his blog.

"ihatebush209 posted another comment almost immediately," Kulundzic said. “He says that now, since I’ve joined the Army, he realizes I was right about Iraq all along. My own individual decision to enlist completely undermined his entire argument against the war."

Kulundzic’s relatives, friends, and colleagues have all expressed shock at his sudden career change. His wife, Kulundzic says, is upset not only that he will be heading off to war, but also that, on his much lower military salary, the couple will have to put their house up for sale and pull their two children out of private school.

Kulundzic shrugs off her concerns.

“Honestly, it was an easy decision to make,” he said. “Proving myself to Internet trolls is worth any price. And as soon as I step off the plane in Baghdad and head out on patrol, my support for the war will finally become valid."

More comments over at Balloon Juice and Crooks and Liars.

Jon Henke wonders whether Democrats and liberals will be signing up to fight in Afghanistan, an invasion that many of them fully supported.


Anonymous said...

Honestly, I don't get it GB. Do you think that this adequately addresses the argument that those who support the war should put their money where their mouths are? Besides, I suspect that a lot of ihatebush guys (myself included) would be honestly impressed if the keyboard komandos followed the lead of your fictional protagonist. 

Posted by Bojack

Anonymous said...

Draft college Republicans! 

Posted by bunkerbuster

Anonymous said...

Honestly, I don't get it GB. Do you think that this adequately addresses the argument that those who support the war should put their money where their mouths are? 

The whole point of the post is that what you describe is not really an "argument" as such; it's more of ad hominem attack.

And for a Bush-hater's reaction to someone putting his money where his mouth is, check this  out. 

Posted by GaijinBiker

Anonymous said...

Ad hominem, perhaps, but valid.

Its so very easy to talk about abstract concepts such as advancing freedom and strategic geo-politics in the abstract and expect others (e.g., American solidiers, their grieving widows, blown up Iraqi policemen, collaterally damaged civilians) to make whatever sacrifice is necessary to achieve those goals.

The point is not that the keyboard kommando's stated rationales for war are untenable because the kk is unwilling to serve. Rather, the issue is that the kk's failure to even entertain the idea of putting his own skin at risk imbues his position with elitist arrogance, unseemly paternalism and a selfish refusal to share sacrifice. That is what ticks people off.

As for the Ted Rall cartoon, what can I say? It's really disrespectful. Despicable, really.

Posted by Bojack

Anonymous said...

Rall's ``do I get to shoot Arabs?" crack about Tillman is a cheap shot, but taken together with the rest of the cartoon, a bullseye.

Who has more courage: Rall, who invites the hair-trigger wrath of legions of macho-insecure right-wingers (click on the link GB provides above to see what I'm talking about) by telling the truth about the war? Or Tillman, who would be on the heavily armored side of what may well be the most lop-sided military battle ever fought? Not saying Tillman was necessarily a coward or a wimp, just pointing out that Rall's balls are pretty big too.

Oh, and lest we forget, Tillman was done in by fire from U.S.-led forces. The Pentagon and its media echo chamber shamelessly lied about that until forced to disclose the truth. Is that not far more despicable than Rall's caricature?


Posted by bunkerbuster

Anonymous said...

GB, I think you have a point about the ad hominem   aspect of the "put up or shut up" argument, but in the end I think you highlight the essential legitimacy of that argument. The point being that Americans are very distant from the actual facts on the ground, the administration quite deliberately prefers to keep it that way, and the unvarnished truth is quite ugly - even to supporters of the war. Asking someone if they are willing to go, or would encourage their kids to go, is intended to have the effect of making the war REAL to people who otherwise are trapped in their own, quite artifical "reality" of the war.

What we have finally learned about the Tillamn case and the government's efforts to glorify and hide a rather senseless death is sobering indeed. Rall's cartoon unfairly targets enlistees, who at least are showing their courage and willingness to sacrifice themeselves for the America they love. His focus instead should be both on the administration, which has gravely abused and wasted that trust on poorly conceived and planned adventures, and on the rest of us, who have preferred either to swallow the adminstration's "preferred reality" hook, line and sinker or at least to turn our heads at the horrible, horrible mess that the adminstration's policies have created.

It is difficult to listen to Bush and Rumsfeld rail at how we are not getting a "fair" view of our progress in Iraq from the MSM. Of course, they have a point in that coverage is slanted towards Abu Ghraib and reports of the latest bombings, but the adminstration is really just whining that we are not getting THEIR view of the war. Besides, what more can the adminstration expect, when it is so unsafe that there is almost zero MSM reporting outside of the Green Zone?

I am sure that the adminstration is pleased that at least it has prevailed at keeping from the American public photos of the body bags, reports of the devastating injuries our troops have suffered (being saved from the body count by miracles of modern medical intervention), and full awareness of the shocking levels of civilian suffering/death caused directly or indirectly by this war.

They must also be quite pleased that polical discourse has become so divided, so that those who have any questions about all of this can be easily dismissed by adminstration supporters as "America haters".

What do we do? Lord only knows, and we'd better start praying.

Some light reading, for those who like to try to keep an open mind.

Chris Albritton: News flash: Iraq is a disaster

Very sobering: Five Bad Options for Iraq:

Leslie Gelb: Ten Days in Iraq


Tokyo Tom

Anonymous said...

Sorry, here's the Allbritton  link. See his June 28 post.


Posted by Tokyo Tom

Anonymous said...

those who have any questions about all of this can be easily dismissed by adminstration supporters as "America haters". 

Any evidence for that? I hear this said all the time but never see any examples.

Personally, I think the "chickenhawk" argument makes as much sense as "if you think the trash should be removed every day but refuse to be a garbage man yourself, you're an elitist hypocrite." 

Posted by Yaron

Anonymous said...

Great article! You can tell, too, by the high troll quotient. Look at the crowd you've brought out here -- you've got one guy claiming that Ted Rall's 3rd-grade level doodles are "more courageous" than Pat Tillman's service in Afghanistan. And look! Here's another guy denouncing Tillman's death in Afghanistan as pointless. Wow, so the fight in Afghanistan is pointless now, too? Must have missed the memo on that one! All apologies to you lefties that we "rushed" to engage the Taliban before fully studying Why They Hate Us. Not that I needed another reminder of why you guys should never be trusted with national security.

Anyway, great takedown of the ridiculous "chickenhawk" insult. Just remember -- pro-war people only get to have an opinion if they're in the military (in which case they convert from being chickenhawks into being Nazis \ Pol Pot \ fodder for a Ted Rall cartoon.) But anti-war people are always  entitled to their opinions no matter what. Hey, I know! Perhaps you guys would be interested in signing up as human shields in order to "put your money where your mouth is."

Beatnik out! 

Posted by Beatnik Joe

Anonymous said...

"Ad hominem, perhaps, but valid."

Oh mah gawd. This sums up liberal America's problem right there.

Attack the messenger, not the message. 

Posted by Sean

Anonymous said...

Great piece. 

Posted by Tony B

Anonymous said...

The Trash Man comment is absolutely correct.

Of course we don't have to be experts in the very thing we advocate, that is why we have specialists. Each of us does what we are good at and, in the end, the ultimate opjective is acheived.

Tillman killed by FF is tragic but changes in no way the notion that he joined the Armed Forces to stand for what he believed in. He had the physical talent and ability and felt he was the best suited.

That Ted Rall and all those like him ignore this significant character trait is telling. And that the ihatebush crowd pops off with "oh yeah, why don't you join" attacks but refuses to recognize those that actually do join is telling as well.

Thanks to all you soldiers who are fighting to protect my Dreamers! 

Posted by Tom_with_a_Dream

Anonymous said...

Beatnik Joe writes: ``you've got one guy claiming that Ted Rall's 3rd-grade level doodles are "more courageous" than Pat Tillman's service in Afghanistan.''

That's a crude misrepresentation.

Here's what I wrote: Who has more courage: Rall, who invites the hair-trigger wrath of legions of macho-insecure right-wingers (click on the link GB provides above to see what I'm talking about) by telling the truth about the war? Or Tillman, who would be on the heavily armored side of what may well be the most lop-sided military battle ever fought? Not saying Tillman was necessarily a coward or a wimp, just pointing out that Rall's balls are pretty big too.


Posted by bunkerbuster

Anonymous said...

Ted Ralls are only big in comparison to the brains of snotty miseducated "truth-tellers" such as your hero Ted Rall. Who knows what Ted Rall looks? Hardly anybody. He was just as hated as any controversial person in politics, whether it be Rush Limbaugh or Michael Moore. But physically, he didn't have to face shit. Unlike anybody who goes to war knows they can die. Even if it's Kosovo war that for some reason never bothered most of our wise "truth-tellers" - and which was by far more lop-sided. 

Posted by Ivan Lenin

Anonymous said...

The "If you believe in the war then why aren't you in Iraq" line is nothing more than the playground equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears going "La,la,la,la,la..." and saying I'm not going to play with you anymore because you won't play by my rules. It's just childish and stupid.

It could be said that the majority of the American people voted for the president. He is then the commandar and chief of the US military which are in turn the enforcers of the American will. So if you didn't vote for Bush then you are a loser and get no say so in the war until you can manage to elect a president with your views.

However, that would be childish and stupid too. 

Posted by Shan

Anonymous said...

Ivan Lenin: for proof you're wrong, click on the link GB provided on the subject. Maybe you should withhold comment about things you haven't even read.

As for the chickenhawk argument: it is certainly unnecessary. The blood on the ground in Iraq, Cheney-Bush's constantly shifting rationale for and assessment of the war and the mounting evidence that the lies were intentional make a close-the-book case for opposing the debacle.

The defensiveness of the militarists here on the chickenhawk epithet is transparent. Any suggestion that "our troops" could be anything less than glorious saints of bravery and self-sacrifice puts them in high dudgeoun and in the mood for fisticuffs (see GB's link referred to above). The failure to match this insistent military glorification with actual participation would point to a gap in sincerity.

But don't despair, dittoheads. The "chickenhawk" paradigm works on socialists too. When they call for more redistribution, just ask them how much of their salary they give away and why only that much... 

Posted by bunkerbuster

Anonymous said...

Sorry, bunkerbuster, it's not a "crude misrepresentation". You spoke lovingly and at length about Ted Rall's "big balls" in comparison to Pat Tillman (who "merely" made the ultimate sacrifice for this country.) Why, after all, Pat Tillman was "heavily armored" while fighting terrorists in Afghanistan! And Ted Rall? All he wears while drawing like an 8-year-old and living in no danger whatsoever is his trusty hemp "It's All Our Fault" t-shirt. Oh yeah, and XXL boxers for his supposed "big balls." Courage personified, that man!

And I especially like your last post, too, where you imply that anyone who defends  the troops without choosing to be one of the troops conjures up a dangerous "gap of sincerity." Tell you what, next time I'm praising the sacrifices that our men and women in uniform (people far better than me) make for us each and every day, I'll remember to whip out the world's smallest violin for your "gap of sincerity."

There you have it folks. Example #14,523,238 of how unserious the left is about national security.

Beatnik out! 

Posted by Beatnik Joe

Anonymous said...

Beatnik Joe, perhaps you don't know that Tillman was killed by "freindly fire" from his own men? I called that senseless, not Afghanistan. By the way, Afghanistan is falling apart again in a serious way, since the Administation chose not to maintain sufficient troops to stabilize that country, which had housed bin Laden, but to invade Iraq (creating terrorists where there had been none).

Yaron asks for evidence to support the claim that those who question the administration are called unpatriotic. I can hardly believe the sincerity of the question, since that is the main tactic of Rove, Limbaugh, Coulter et al., and of course is not an unknown phenomenon on the "right-wing" blogs - but here are a few links for his edification:

The problem with the "patriotism" issue is that people really don't WANT to discussion, since it involves too much painful thinking. I sense BG is making an honest effort, but even at this blog those with dissenting opinions are dismissed as "trolls" or "ihatebush"ers.

The rest of this is for those of you who would rather argue about patriotism than think.

George Washington:

"Guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism."

Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel. Samuel Johnson (1709–84)

H. L. Mencken added this: “But there is something even worse: it is the first, last, and middle range of fools.”

Ralph Barton Perry:
"If patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel, it is not merely because evil deeds may be performed in the name of patriotism … but because patriotic fervor can obliterate moral distinction altogether."

Mark Twain:

"Each man must for himself alone decide what is right and what is wrong, which course is patriotic and which isn't. You cannot shirk this and be a man. To decide against your conviction is to be an unqualified and excusable traitor, both to yourself and to your country, let me label you as they may."

Teddy Roosevelt:

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. Nothing but the truth should be spoken about him or any one else. But it is even more important to tell the truth, pleasant or unpleasant, about him than about any one else."

Hermann Göring, Hitler’s Reichsmarschall, at the Nuremberg Trials:

Göring:"Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship."

Gilbert: "There is one difference. In a democracy, the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars."

Göring: "Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."

BM, I tried to explain how the "chicken hawk" arguement could be a legitimate tool to tell someone to "get real". Many of your readers object. Here is an opposing view by soldier now serving in Iraq, who thinks the "patriots" and this Administration are really not serving the soldiers well at all:

"Whenever I get into an argument with a conservative, the story is always the same. First, they tell me I'm unamerican and unpatriotic. After I show them my military ID and mention I was in OEF, their next response is to say that I'm hurting my fellow soldiers. Then I confront them and ask them what they've done for the troops. Have they petitioned congress to make sure that the soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan have all the armor they need? Do they make sure that the Reservists still have jobs when they come home? Do they lift a finger to look out for soldiers families while they're away? Did they even send a care package? So far, everyone I've debated has given me a no to all of these questions.

Then I ask them why they haven't stood up and fought against Bush when he slashed veterans benefits. Why don't they care about troops being undermanned and underequipped in Iraq? Their answer is always the same: Vet's have all they need, and troops in Iraq are doing just fine. Nevermind all of the reports and newspaper stories saying otherwise. Nevermind that soldiers are dying. We're doing just fine over there.

Finally, I ask them why they don't go and fight the war themselves if it is so great. I get all kinds of excuses for this one. If they are over 38 they simply say that they are too old. I respond by telling them "Halliburton is hiring." They make excuses for not wanting to go to Iraq as a civilian.

In the end it's all the same. I'm sure that there are some conservatives out there that do genuinely support the troops. But I have yet to meet one. The ones I know are all wimps who don't have the balls to enforce the policy that they believe in."

Funds for Health Care of Veterans $1 Billion Short

Here is Chuck Hagel, Republican senator, Nebraska (and Vietnem vet with two Purple Hearts), recently telling it as it is:

"Iraq could be worse than Vietnam."

"The point is, we're going to have to make some changes or we will lose, we will lose in Iraq."

"To see what these guys in Iraq are having to go through and knowing what I know here: that we didn't prepare for it, we didn't understand what we were getting into. And to put those guys in those positions, it makes me so angry."

"We are destroying the finest military in the history of mankind, and the (National) Guard, too," he said. "We're stretching our Army to the breaking point."

The United States has only about six more months to begin to turn things around in Iraq, he said.

"I believe that there can be a good outcome in Iraq," he said. "I also believe there could be a very bad outcome for Iraq. I believe we have a very limited time for that good outcome."

I ran across this today, and it is so close to my position that couldn't help throwing this in:

"As of today, after 25 years, I am no longer a Republican."

BG, my apologies for running on.


Posted by Tokyo Tom

Anonymous said...

I suppose that those who are not wealthy are no longer allowed to call for higher taxes on those who are, right? Or at the very least, those who don't work shouldn't be able to vote to raise taxes on those who do?

Just askin'

Also, does this mean that the left will loosen their support for gun control? After all, since I'm not willing to join the police, I shouldn't count on them to protect me, and as such I may need a gun to protect myself.

I suppose I can no longer root for my favorite baseball team, not being willing to try out for them and all.

Come on guys. The chickenhawk "argument" is stupid, plain and simple. If those who do not serve cannot support the war, then they cannot oppose it either. Thus, all those who haven't served are stuck having no say in it. Is that really what we want? 

Posted by Jason

Anonymous said...

Well put, Jason.

Tokyo Tom, I am aware that Pat Tillman was killed in a friendly fire incident. This does not make his death in service to his country or the war we were fighting "senseless". This statement disgraces his sacrifice.

For example, the deaths of so many police and firefighters on 9/11 might have been prevented if communications, organization, and situational awareness had been perfect. Tragically, this was not the case, and we cannot expect it to be the case now or in the future. This does not make their deaths on that day "senseless." They made an heroic sacrifice, as Pat Tillman did, laying down their lives for their fellow citizens. Nothing senseless about that. 

Posted by Beatnik Joe

Anonymous said...

The point being that Americans are very distant from the actual facts on the ground 

The large number of reservists and national guards who are serving - and rotating home - belies that assertion.

of course, there are segments of our population who don't KNOW anyone in uniform. I'm quite willing to believe that THEY are distant from actual facts on the ground. Have been for years. 

Posted by military wife

Anonymous said...

To take the argument to its natural conclusion, ihatebush209 must join the army--after all, he admitted Kulundzic was right about Iraq, meaning war was the right thing, thus making ihatebush209 a chickenhawk.

You've discovered yet another interesting facet of the phenomenon--if even one soldier supports the war, every person who uses the chickenhawk argument must, if they are intellectually honest (ahem), join the army. 

Posted by byrd

Anonymous said...

another funeral Bush won't attend when this guy gets blown to bits.

not "if", but "when". 

Posted by Midori

Anonymous said...

Byrd: The ``chickenhawk'' argument is that the lack of participation in the Iraq wars by some of its most strident advocates is evidence of their hypocrisy and raises questions about their sincerity.

As has been made embarrassingly clear, Gainjinbiker made up the story, or borrowed it from someone else who did, including the rationale that participation in the conflict would make one's view correct or incorrect.

Outside of Gaijinbiker's parody, no one is claiming that participation in the war is itself an argument in favor of the war: rather it is merely evidence that the war's supporter is sincere and not a hypocrit.

According to some estimates, by the winter of 2006, the military will have run out of reservists that can be rotated into Iraq and will have to either start a draft, alter the reserve system agreements or take some other drastic action. Apparently, there is no plan to deal with this eventuality. As with the invasion itself, the administration is gambling on a positive outcome such that the troops won't be needed by then.

Meanwhile, while we discuss parodies and hypotheticals, real military recruiters are seeing just how slender real support for the war in Iraq has become. They're finding precious few people willing to sign up to the military, even with increased benefit offers and a pumped up advertising campaign.

Perhaps taking he cue from the Commander in Chief himself, recruiters are resorting to deception to try and meet their quotas.

TV news story 

* Army recruiters falsified physical fitness exams, telling one potential recruit to take laxatives to lose weight.

* a former U.S. Marine gives his inside view of how recruiters lie about benefits, assignments and prospects for actually being involved in combat. 

Posted by bunkerbuster

Anonymous said...

I was joking. 

I guess I need to update the Operation Yellow Elephant bingo cards  

Posted by Gen. JC Christian, patriot

Anonymous said...

You put your money where you mouth is. Congradulations. It still doesn't make the rationalizations for the war valid; it does make your support of combat in Iraq valid. Via con Dios.

Posted by Byron

Anonymous said...

Outside of Gaijinbiker's parody, no one is claiming that participation in the war is itself an argument in favor of the war: rather it is merely evidence that the war's supporter is sincere and not a hypocrit. 

No, but they (you?) are arguing that non-participation in the war is an argument against the war. And that's the problem. You seem to suggest that the argument is only valid one way, but the converse is not. But if all the "chickenhawks" went down to the recruitment office tomorrow that would not make the war any more right or wrong.

Again, all it is is name-calling, not an argument. Fine, we're all hypocrites and insincere. So what? Does that make us wrong?

Somewhere along the line, the left became overly concerned with motives rather than results, personalities rather than policies. Whether a particular policy is good or not has nothing to do with whether or not some jerk supports it.

And to ask another question: Would a soldier who is opposed to the war be insincere and a hypocrite for following orders? Would he be a chicken for not deserting the military and facing the consequences of that choice?

Here's the deal: Some people support the war. Some oppose it. Some in each group are in the military. Some are not.

Name-call if it makes you feel better. I don't care; I can take it. But I'm not going to change my opinions because someone called me a nasty name. However, I am going to assume that the person doing the name-calling either has no confidence in his or her arguments or confidence in his or her ability to express those arguments.

But either way, I'm not swayed by name-calling. 

Posted by Jason

Anonymous said...

The thing that is missing in the discussion of war in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the chicken hawk patriot BS, is the realization that these wars are not a result of 9/11, but rather that 9/11 was the trigger that allowed this Administration to put their long stated goals into action. Read PNAC’s letters. Read their speeches. Look where their most prominent members are situated in this government. And above all read “The Grand Chessboard”. If you do that you may begin to understand that all the “you’re and idiot, no you are” talk is completely worthless. We are all being played for fools. The sad thing is when it comes to war the majority of humans are, and always have been easily Fooled by the people who profit from wars. Afghanistan and Iraq are Geostrategic and resource wars, not a response to 9/11, not making America safer, and certainly not to spread Democracy or liberate anyone or anything except cash and freedom. 

Posted by CrazyDan

Anonymous said...

I hate this has to follow the evil Neocon/Zionist/Grey Alien conspiracy crap above, but has anyone considered that this talk of "running out" of troops and reservists depends on ALL current troop deployments remaining unchanged?

Say, for example, if we were to shift some of the sizable contingent of troops based in Europe (which arguably could take care of itself at present) to Iraq? Or draw down numbers elsewhere that's not a primary security threat to reposition in Afghanistan and Iraq?

Might that be another, reasonable alternative to consider?

Or, the Left could just go ahead and cry "Chickenhawk" ad infinitum and continue looking at the situation with blinders on. 

Posted by RS

Anonymous said...

The 'Chickenhawk' argument is perfectly valid for those who compared Saddam to Hitler. When civilization is threatened, as by a Hitler, it is the duty of all (garbagemen, baseball players, conservative bloggers) to enlist in the fight. It is not left up to the specialists.
But if you are saying that Saddam was not all that dangerous and posed no dire threat to civilization - no smoking gun in the shape of a mushroom cloud - OK. Stay behind your keyboards.
But then...what was your rational for invading Iraq? 

Posted by Weakly World News

Anonymous said...

It appears to me that this argument of war supporters joining the military is one of patriotism. Attempting to use analogies such as garbage collection misses the entire point of the matter.

An American patriot, to me, is one that does their absolute best to insure that our country, way of life, society and culture of freedom and independence are kept safe and secure. War, considered a last resort by all reasonable humans, means that We, The People have been convinced (or coerced) into believing that our lives are at danger. Thus, this collective fear motivates us to do what we each  believe necessary to survive.

With that in mind, the argument of supporting the war begs that one does everything possible, including joining the military during this time of crisis, to uphold their own patriotic beliefs. The inverse also holds true; if there are those that believe otherwise, they too must not do the same (i.e. join the military) since they believe we will be safer by not waging war. And that is their patriotic duty. It begs for far more insight than comparison to a garbage collector.

Posted by John Q. Patriot

Anonymous said...

I thought the guy's name was GayJimBiker... another self-loathing, closeted Republican without the courage of his convictions, just the desire to profit from the physical sacrifice of others.... 

Posted by coldsnap

Anonymous said...

I served in the USAF Security Service during the Vietnam War. I'm a liberal Democrat. My roommate's a Republican who served in the U.S. Army around the same time I was serving.

Everyone I talked to following 9/11, both Democrats and Republicans, were for going into Afghanistan and kicking some Taliban ass and obliterating the Al Qaeda. So it's interesting to hear Beatnik Joe repeat the vicious spin someone spewed recently.

After 9/11, there was no shortage of recruits, whether Democrats, Republicans or Independents. Not responding to the murderous attack on 9/11 was not an option. We knew who was behind it shortly after it occurred...bin Laden and the Al Qaeda. Iraq was not involved. None of the terrorists were Iraqi. (And besides, if Iraq had been somehow involved and irrefutable proof was available, wouldn't we have attacked Iraq at the same time we attacked Afghanistan back in 2001? No spin, no fixing the intel around an invasion policy, no delay of 1 1/2 years between 9/11 and starting an ill-conceived, ill-planned, ill-executed war in Iraq???? The logic is blinding. This is why I knew Bush was lying about everything before the start of war in Iraq.)

But what Bush and his advisers have been attempting to do since 9/11 is turn a localized police action (Afghanistan) into a global struggle between the West and the East, between Christianity and Islam, between "us" and "them." Greeeaaaaattt!!

Most Muslims (being non-Shariah fanatics) either applauded or were non-commital over our going into Afghanistan to wipe out the Taliban/Al Qaeda terrorism stronghold.

So, did Bush flood Afghanistan with American troops to crush and eradicate all Taliban/Al Qaeda/fundamentalist Shariah influences in that country? NO. Did he firmly tell the remnants of the Taliban/Al Qaeda that "Yes, you do have the right to pray at your mosque, pray toward Mecca five times a day, dress like a Shariah, act like a Shariah, live like a Shariah, as a fundamentalist individual...but if you try to force anyone else in Afghanistan to bow down to your Shariah beliefs, if you start terrorizing Afghan citizens again who don't want to be Shariah, then we will crush you again and again and again, if necessary. You won't be allowed to teach your Shariah in the secular public schools we will help build. And in the public marketplace, you will mind your manners. The public marketplace belongs to ALL the public, not just you fundamentalist Shariah wacko terrorists."

Nope, Bush didn't tell them this. So, Shariah adherents are now terrorizing Afghan citizens again, even in the relatively secular capital of Kabul. And besides the Shariah nuts reappearing, the rest of the country has been split up between warlords and their militias, who are periodically fighting over the poppy trade. Afghanistan is beginning to look exactly like it appeared after the Soviets left.

And what you see happening in Afghanistan is what I am afraid is going to happen to Iraq. Under Saddam Hussein, the Shariah advocates and practitioners were largely kept under control. Now with him and his security appartus gone, huge areas of Iraq are now controlled by religious Shariah terrorists. Christians have been fleeing for their lives from Iraq because they were among the first to be targetted by the unleashed Shariah fanatics. Before Bush started the Iraq war, Iraq was just a local irritant, but since war began, Bush has turned Iraq into another terrorist breeding ground, with the potential for religious terrorism to become one of Iraq's primary exports in the future.

And because of the half-assed manner in which Bush went into Afghanistan, now it is once again becoming a terrorist breeding ground, too, with imams in Afghani madrassas teaching kids to hate the West. Incredible.

Of course, I have a fairly broad perspective. I read alot. On the internet. Newspapers. I don't listen to radio talk shows. I don't listen to fox news. I will not allow myself to be propagandized by anyone, Republicans, Democrats or whomever.

A side note: In 1979, two religious fundamentalist, orthodox leaders declared war on the West. On western culture, western democracies, western values, western living. On countries with generally liberal ideals, pluralistic, freedom-loving, individualistic societies. Who were these men?

Jerry Falwell and the Ayatollah Khomeini. Several months apart. In 1979. What you saw on 9/11 was the result of the Ayatollah Khomeini's fundamentalist, orthodox declaration of war on the West. What one is seeing in America, assault after assault on individual liberties in an attempt to force everyone to obey one religious orthodoxy, is a direct result of Jerry Falwell's, and his orthodox, religious followers, declaration of war on our democracy. I don't see any difference between the two of them, even though they supposedly are of different religions. "By their fruit you will recognize them." 

Posted by The Oracle

Anonymous said...

People make these arguments that:
Supporting the war is like supporting teachers, Police officers, or tougher testing for students. And that they shouldn’t have to fight in said war any more than they should have to become teachers, police officers or test makers if they support the ideals of those professions.
This is called a straw man argument. There are several problems with that argument. One is that people who advocate for things like education aren’t forcing people to put their life on the line. Even in law enforcement, a police officer rarely pulls their gun. They’re not being asked to do it for less than a decent wage (except probably teachers) or in places that they don’t want to go and be separated from their family for extended periods. The most important one is that while all professions have been voluntarily entered into, they all can’t be voluntarily left when the person feels like it.
Most people don’t join the military to fight wars. As a nation we have believed in a large and effective military to prevent war. We have very rarely entered into pre-emptive wars.
If you don’t want to be called a chicken hawk, don’t advocate the war or join it.

Posted by dan

Anonymous said...

One thing that we must remember is to respect the returning soldiers and their families. All of us, no matter which side of the argument we take, must pitch in to take care of our veterans.

How do we do that? We make sure our elected representatives know that we want the veterans benefits increased and programs enforced, rather than being cut away. Both sides can contact their Congress reps and support these soldiers, can't they?

We need to know how many deaths there have been once a soldier has left Iraq or Afghanistan. We need to know how many wounded their are. We need to volunteer to help our wonded vets back into their lives. We need to insure that our Guardsmen are taken care of when they return and their families when they are gone.

Both sides need to show their true love of country and support our youth who have given their lives to this War on Terrorism. If you can't join up to help the shortfall then do something to support the troups serving and the vets who have come back.

I don't agree with the handling of this war and I feel that we have been manipulated but as Americans and humans, we must take care of those who have served and returned injured physically and mentally. This Administration has not lived up to taking care of our soldiers and it isn't because of Democrats or Liberals.

Republicans have shot down the funding for the Vets.

That must be changed. Contact your Elected officials. Demand that they support the troops. Armor over there and vet benefits when they come home. Sign up or shut up. 

Posted by treehugger

Anonymous said...

Everyone keeps asking where the connection is between Saddam and 9/11. It's been in front of your noses all along. The same bastards who installed Saddam armed him with WMD and resupplied him after he gassed his own people were complicit in the 9/11 attacks: our government and principals in the Dumbya regime. The national dialogue has been bogus for a long time. The truth may be too shocking for many people but it will certainly set you free. 

Posted by Joe Buckstrap

Anonymous said...

To our host blogger: I respect and applaud your decision to add your personal support to our country's policies.

To everyone making police/fire/sanitation-type analogies: You're missing the point.

The issue is credibility of national leadership. If our President cannot even persuade even his strongest supporters that Our Country Needs You [Personally], how can he possibly persuade the entire country merely to continue to support the U.S. military engagement in Iraq?

Think about it.

Posted by Karl Olson

Anonymous said...

it is a joke.  

Posted by sue

Anonymous said...

Wow, it's like the troll highlight reel in here! Amazingly enough, we've still  got a collection of people that believe that it is unacceptable to support the war and not sign up as a soldier. I think that argument has been pretty thoroughly obliterated, in spite of the lingering hot air to the contrary. Let's summarize: in order to be granted the left's permission to support the troops or the war, you must enlist, at which point you are upgraded from "chickenhawk" into "dupe in dumbya's illegal war for oil." Of course, no special permission is required to call the troops Nazis and Pol Pot, or to proclaim that "Bush Knew!"

But I wanted to address The Oracle's point that, "everyone he talked to" wildly supported the invasion of Afghanistan. Well, I'll just leave out the obvious exception of a certain corpulent filmmaker that spent the evening of the Democratic National Convention eating fried cheese with Jimmy Carter. I would have thought that with all of your vaunted "reading a lot" on "the internet" you would have stumbled across the Democratic Underground to take a real look at the underbelly of the left.

But hey, I wouldn't wish that on anyone, so let's see what we can find on this very page! Why, here's a collection of colorful characters on this very troll-a-palooza thread that seem to disagree that Afghanistan was worth fighting for! Looks like it ain't my "vicious spin", baby. Did I "spin" Joe Buckstrap into saying that "The same bastards...were complicit in the 9/11 attacks: our government and principals in the Dumbya regime"? Now does that sound like a rock-ribbed Afghanistan war supporter "ready to kick ass" to you? Or how about Crazy Dan: "Afghanistan and Iraq are Geostrategic and resource wars, not a response to 9/11" Sounds like these guys were ready to enlist, don't you think?

This is what is referred to in medical terms as "off your rocker batty nutso." To Michael Moore and guys like this, "dumbya's regime" or Jerry Falwell is a bigger threat to the United States than terrorists seeking weapons of mass destruction. Really now -- are people like this determined to win in Iraq or would they rather throw it to the dogs just to stick it to "dumbya"? The trolls have shown more eloquently than I ever could why the left, yet again, can never be trusted with national security.

Beatnik out! 

Posted by Beatnik Joe

Anonymous said...

Here's the deal: Some people support the war only as long as they don't have to get their own little girl panties any where near the real fighting men. Some oppose it.

It's really not that complicated. 

Posted by melior

Anonymous said...

I don't think this has been adequately fleshed out so let me try. I won't fight in Iraq with the current administration in charge. That's because they've consistently fallen over themselves in this struggle. I love my country, I'd give my life for my country, but I won't give my life for a cause I don't understand or support. And I don't understand the war in Iraq.

Every reason the Bush administration gave to go to war has turned out to be at best questionable and at worst a lie. That said, there are a lot of people hurting in Iraq right now, and running may leave Iraq worse than when we got there, and that would do much more to undermine our international credibility and our struggle against terrorism than this war already has. Further, our nation has a moral obligation to see that this doesn't happen. We have to leave a stable country. Not necessarily a society bent on supporting America when some half-brained simeon takes over, but one that respects us and will fight with us against people who really do hate civility and the law. I don't think American forces led by this department of defense and presidency can achieve this end.

Back to the main now, there have been serious and consistent shortfalls in recruiting goals as a direct result of this war. To make the garbage man analogy, no one wants to be a garbageman right now. There are a large number of "garbage supporters" who constantly talk about the need for sanitation and cleanliness but do nothing when the garbageman quota comes up short. Shouldn't the ones constantly calling for garbage management put in a little volunteer work? If the cause is so great, shouldn't they put in to this great cause? Should the people who had nothing to do with the garbage crisis pay for other's mistakes?

There are a number of people who dislike Bush who are fighting his war right now. They're dying for a cause they don't even know and back home you have people talking about our need to stay in Iraq even though they won't answer the call in what they perceive as their country's time of need. They support the people policing the war, they repeat the lying bs they hear to justify this effort, and yet only roughly 5000 people joined the military this month when the army was initially expecting some 9000 recuits and needed some 16000 to keep pace with their anual expectations. People don't want to fight in this war, and our army can't handle that right now. Moving our troops from Europe would be a historical move, but not a positive move. It would show that we are bogged down in this fight, which is what commanders in the frey ruitinely tell us . If that is the case, we may need a draft to stabilize Iraq. Let me put it to you simply, if I'm drafted, my blood is on the hands of the people who still support this administration and their policies. And I hope none of them sleep a restful night in their lives for the role they've played in this tragedy. If you support this effort, you should enlist. Your country, apparently, needs you. 

Posted by chetwick

Anonymous said...

Gaijin Biker, I think you haven't been reading the criticisms of Iraq War chickenhawks too closely because you totally miss the point.

Folks aren't arguing that whether conservatives enlist determines whether the war is justified or not. The idea is that the Iraq War was a war of choice, not a war of necessity. People of certain "intellectual school" pushed for a war that wasn't needed to defend our country. This isn't about winning an argument, which belittles the idea. This is about the justice that in a war of choice, rather than necessity, for those who pushed the choice to bear the burden and put their lives on the line. A conservative blogger signing up wouldn't make him right, it would simply make him not a hypocrite.

And you've really engaged in some base deception in your post. You write about "the need to be absolutely sure that Saddam had no WMD's [sic]." That wasn't the rationale pushed for the war. The Administration and supporters argued that there was "no doubt" that Saddam had WMDs so we had to disarm him.

Furthermore, you're writing about a lower salary and taking the kids out of private school illustrates an anti-chickenhawk point. Thousands of Americans are having their lives disrupt for a war, not for self-defense but by conservatives' choices. Because there aren't enough enlistments and because we acted without a broad coalition, Guard and Reserve troops who did not expect to go overseas are being sent, and service members of all types are being sent multiple times or held beyond their expected commitments. Thus, Reservists who thought they be able to maintain normal lives and jobs have had them disrupted because of your choosing.

The choice to make your fictional blogger a gastroenterologist is telling. Many chickenhawk bloggers or MSM journalists are simply writers, or do other work not necessary on the homefront. As individuals, they'd be more valuable in Iraq than here. You yourself are a financial analyst. This contrasts sharply with an MD (although I don't whether certain kind of doctors might be needed over there and plentiful here).


Posted by James

Anonymous said...

As James suggests above, no liberal believes that anything a person's willing to die for is justified because of that willingness. The common circumstance of two persons both being willing to die for a cause, while the cause that each is willing to die for is inconsistent w/ the other cause, demonstrates such a belief to be unsupportable.

A very large part of the argument against the war is that the case in favor of the war is specious. That conservatives advocate so vigorusly for a specious war that they won't fight in themselves is where the shame lies. If you want us to all take a startling leap of faith w/ you to conclude this war is justified, then you all had better stop squawking that people are unpatriotic simply because they can't close their eyes to how faulty the case mad for war is. You had better start praising liberals as true patriots who have the best interest of the country in mind, and who from that commitment believe that going to war in Iraq was a bad, wrong choice. You had better tell all your other conservative buddies to do the same.

The fact that so many so-called "hawks" think that the war isn't worth fighting really puts the burden on them in a heavy way to show that this doubtful, specious war is somehow worth it, despite all the doubt and all the damage. That's a burden you conservatives simply can't carry. Stop whining and griping at liberals all the time.


Posted by Swan

Anonymous said...

Praise Gaia! The circle is complete -- the defensive "how dare you question my patriotism even though none of you actually did" argument has finally  surfaced. And to top it off, Swan has kindly provided us with instructions on how war supporters are to behave from here on out. Read carefully, my Halliburton brethren!

Swan sez:
"You had better start praising liberals as true patriots who have the best interest of the country in mind, and who from that commitment believe that going to war in Iraq was a bad, wrong choice. You had better tell all your other conservative buddies to do the same."

Ah yeah, Swan! Take it to the next level, baby! Now, not only are you now required by the left to enlist in the military in order to have an opinion (well, unless it's the "right" opinion, in which case it's okay to be a pasty wacko living in your parents' basement.) Now, you must also praise those who "bravely" oppose the war (without, of course, signing up to become human shields) and tell our "conservative buddies" to join in our hymn of praise. Undoubtedly, once all of this is done, then, at long last, the left will be of some assistance in the War on Terror. Or at the very least, they'll dial it down a bit and only refer to the troops as Mussolini rather than Hitler or Pol Pot.

Once the left puts even 1/10th as much energy into coming up with ways to fight terrorism as it does coming up with ways to demonize Bush, demoralize our soldiers, run down the war effort, fret over the treatment of terrorists at Gitmo, or tell us how much better everything was with Uncle Saddam in power, then maybe we can start pretending that the left is in any way serious about national security. 

Posted by Beatnik Joe

Anonymous said...

Conservatives should praise liberals for our patriotism, defer to our judgment, and should even become liberals themselves. A good first step would be to start voting for Democratic candidates.

People who presently identify themselves as conservatives should note that they'll have to do these things & prove to us that they're members of the reality-based community after we see the '06 and '08 election results.

If only a liberal had been elected president in '00 or '04, the world would be much safer now.  

Posted by Swan

Anonymous said...


that should have read "conservatives should note that they'll have a chance to do these things..." 

Posted by Swan

Anonymous said...

I'm new to this blog, but I know one thing for sure: this Beatnik Joe fellow sounds like a major-league asshole. 

Posted by Paul Berra

Anonymous said...

Swan, you complete me. I had almost forgotten about the "reality-based community." Remind me, is this the same "reality-based community" that says, "The same bastards...were complicit in the 9/11 attacks: our government and principals in the Dumbya regime "

And to Paul Berra, welcome! Beatnik Joe has much love for you, baby. There are many good people on the left, but they are wrong about everything that matters.

Beatnik out! 

Posted by Beatnik Joe

Anonymous said...

What`s interesting to me about this thread is that despite honest effort by most of the "trolls" to talk substantively about the "war on terror", the loyal Bush supporters won`t engage in a real discussion.

Instead of debating the merits of the war in Iraq or how the administration is dealing with the many other related issues, they want to argue solely about the "unfairness" of the "chickenhawk" label, and other issues are simply shunted aside by name-calling of the like we see from Beatnik Joe. Those of you supporting the administration should look at your own reactions - the level of defensiveness, close-mindedness and aggression they display show that you extremely uncomfortable with the posssiblity that your "truth" may be wrong, and prefer not to think except to defend your world-view.

I know it`s tough to change your mind, but you really ought to start paying closer attention to the huge mis-matches between the facts and the pronounced view from the administration. That you still prefer not to argue facts leads me to conclude, to borrow a phrase from Beatnik Joe, that guys should never have been trusted with the national security.

Iraq is very nearly an unmitigated disaster, and one that could have been seen going in. We have no good options left, and our national interests will be sorely wounded by this war even in the best of cases.

See Daniel Byman, with Georgetown's Security Studies Program and Brookings:

Five Bad Options for Iraq 

He had made a deliberate case in 2003 for "staying the course" in Iraq, based the strategic importance of a stable, democratic Iraq.

The administration has never explained its real motives for the invasion of Iraq - I would love to know, but they were never honestly explained or debated. Clearly the invasion was not a part of the war on terror - the terrorists responsible for 9/11 were al Qaeda, who trained in hte Taliban`s Afghanistan, but were Egyptian and Saudi.

Of course, now that the invasion of Iraq has turned out so badly, Iraq HAS turned into the front-line of the war on terror (hardly the adminstration`s goal), but in the meanwhile the focus has long been off of (i) Afghanistan, which remains a fractureed state and is falling back into chaos, (ii) bin Laden, and (iii) actually improving homeland security.

Nothing is turning out well in Iraq, and our invasion is seriously destabilizing the whole region. Despite the elections last year, the country is fracturing and sliding into civil war. Freedoms gained by toppling Saddam and his secular Baathist regime have been seriously eroded as the Shiites and Sunnis both have sought to enforce a fundamentalist Koran-based society. In Basra in the south, religious goon squads have cracked down against a women and dissent. While the US controls the airport and the Green Zone, Shiite Iran now has more influence in the rest of the country the the US. (By the way, Bush bad-mouthing of the religious rulers in Iran just before the recent elections is credited with galvanizing the more fundamentalist electoral base, turning a possible victory for the candidate in favor of improving ties with the US into a victory for the religious hard-line candidate.)

A parting word: the Bush adminstration is NOT a conservative adminstration. If it were, it would have been devolving power to the states and limiting the role of the federal government in our lives. Among others, this would mean cutting government spending in addition to cutting taxes. Instead, we have an adminstration that with the Patriot Act has has threatened citizen`s rights (and argues that even citizens, if labelled enemy combatants, can be locked away idefinitely without lawyers or judicial review). Government spending has run rampant, the adminstraion is running up enormous budget deficits. We are also running huge trade/current account deficits, which coupled witht eh budget deficits mean that China, Japan, India and others are financing our irresponsibility. This is not a "buck stops here" adminstration, but one that believes in "pay forward". And pay we will.

For those of you unaware othat there are plenty of good ole "conservatives" and libertarians who are appalled by this adminstration, here are a few places that may enlighten you:

Keep on thinking free!


Posted by Tokyo Tom

Anonymous said...

You guys are missing the point. It doesn't matter who enlists, these wars are already over--both of them (Iraq & Afghanistan). We had incompetent leadership and we lost. Make no mistake. Don't be fooled by the spinmeisters in Washington. We lost. No amount of White House spin will change that. And in this case, just like in Vietnam, the only choice we have NOW is how many more lives to pour down the sewer before we recognize defeat and cut our losses by leaving. Afghanistan is unrulable. Their gun culture makes East Tennessee look like a ladies garden club. They are mean dudes, they don't leave their Kalashnikov behind even to take a piss and they don't like ferengi. They will fight us and any other foreigner until they are dead. Their country is mountainous and remote and they know it well and we don't. And I'll tell you something else. Iraq is equally ungovernable. And there are more guns and explosive per square inch there than at a Dallas Gun show so don't flatter yourself that we can deal. Two years in and we can't even control the road between the Green Zone and the Airport. At least Saigon was under control. Stop letting your egotistical desire to believe in all things American mislead you. We are screwed.

I'm sure you don't like to hear that. I'm sure it makes you angry with me. Go ahead. Let it out. Scream loudly at the computer and curse my name. Do whatever makes you feel better but it won't change even a single fact. We have a loser at the top and he has made us all losers. Congrats folks. We're losing another one. The volunteer Army is broken but the draft would only make the political upheaval worse so don't even go there. The reserves and National Guard are also broken. Disregard the June recruitment numbers they are a fluke caused by the end of the academic year. There is no fix for this. Bush is cooked. We are cooked. We can courageously accept that fact and move on or  we can pusillanimously con ourselves into thinking that it isn't true. Real men would know how to accept defeat gracefully but I'm sure we'll find a way to drag this out so more lives can be wasted. So, curse me out good. Get it all out of your system and then think about it. How many more lives do you think are worth pouring down the toilet? And for what? We don't even have Bin Laden and we won't get him either because Musharraf will do whatever he needs to to stay in power and right now that involves leaving Bin Laden where he is. So just get over it. Accept defeat and move on. Try to wean yourself of the sweet heroine of White House spin and just get the hell over it.


Posted by Steve Gardner

Anonymous said...

Tom DeLay is letting down the National Guard and Reservists who have gone to war. Why can't he understand the plight of the military service personnel? He never went to war. Check this out:

DeLay Opposed Expanding TRICARE to Thousands of National Guard & Reserve Volunteers

DeLay voted against a motion to expand access to the military's TRICARE health insurance program to thousands of reservist and National Guard members. Despite the fact that more than 433,000 members of the National Guard and Reserves have been called up for active duty over the last two and one-half years, not all Guardsmen and Reservists have access to TRICARE.

A 2003 report by the General Accounting Office showed that 20 percent of all Reservists do not have health insurance, and 40 percent of Reservists aged 19 to 35 lack health coverage. According to the latest Defense Department data, 18 percent of activated Reservists have no medical coverage. Currently, only those called up for active duty are eligible for the program and they lose the insurance when they return home. The proposal would have expanded military health care to provide access to TRICARE to most members of the Guard and Reserve and their families for a low fee. The motion failed, 211-218. [HR 1815, Roll Call #221, 5/25/05; Leadership Document, "DOD Authorization Previous Question on Rule"; R 9-218; D 201-0; I 1-0]

Why doesn't this Administration supports its warriors?
Why doesn't this Administration listen to the Generals who advised not to enter this Iraqi War?

Clearly there is another agenda. What will signal victory? When the oil is pumping back to the US? How did our oil get under their soil?

Support our troops, bring them back and give them the benefits they should receive for fighting.

Beatnik Joe, I hope you lead the charge to Capitol Hill to get the Vets their benefits, since you aren't risking your hide for this Administration. FYI, my son-in-law is an F-16 pilot risking his ass for you and my son served 2 years in the Peace Corp as part of cultural exchange in an 100% Muslim country.

How have you sacrificed?

Posted by treehugger

Anonymous said...

There's so many stupid comments in this thread it's impossible to address them all.

Here's just one - Give the veterans their benefits? Since 2000 the VA budget has been increased over 50%. Death benefits increased from $12,000 to $100,000. Life insurance benefits increased from $250,000 to $400,000.

It would be nice if people would deal in facts, but that is obviously not to be.

For all the lefties - if you believe in YOUR cause, why aren't you fighting on the side of the "insurgents"? Chicken???? 

Posted by antimedia

Anonymous said...

Umm, antimedia, where do you get your info?

I just looked up military death benefits, and the government site  I looked them up on stated that the death benefit has been raised from $6000 to 12,000. No mention of $100,000 at all.

Life insurance is also not listed as a benefit on that site. There is a program called SGLI, through which servicemembers who elect to pay premiums can get life insurance of up to $250,000 - but it's not something the government pays for, and again - no mention of $400,000 anywhere.

Other than that, families can get the Social Security death benefit, which can be, oh, as much as $255.

Where did *your* numbers come from? 

Posted by pierrette

Anonymous said...

Attention, 'antimedia' and associated chickenhawk dupes and fellow travelers:

It's true that VA bennies have been increased, but not to the level the VA needs- required by the hordes of wounded troops returning from Bush's clusterfuck...hence waiting lists at clogged VA hospitals, and homeless, mentally ill vets from wars going all the way back to 'Nam.

Just how does being against draft-dodger Bush's (well, really Cheney's, but that's fine as he's a yellow chickenhawk too) clusterfuck put me and other anti-war vets, along with 'the left', that are opposed to this lunacy in Iraq on the side of the 'insurgents', silly boy?

Quite a leap you made there, but then modern Republican, Goebbels/Limbaugh-inspired 'logic' wouldn't have it any other way.

More likely, you, lke the rest of the war-loving chickenhawks, are merely using your 'indignation' at being called what you really are as a fig leaf for your simpering, cringing cowardice...a cowardice brilliantly displayed by spouting the slogans and waving banners of the neo-conservative militarists, but having 'other priorities' when asked (as the Army is desperately doing now) to back up your 'convictions' with personal sacrifice and bravery.

And you call yourself a 'citizen' of the US.

Eat it raw, chickenhawk.

-John M. 

Posted by john manyjars

Anonymous said...

1. Who is making a certain argument has absolutely no relevance on whether that argument is valid.

2. Many warbloggers are doing their part in ways that do not involve being in uniform. In many cases this is based not (even) on concern for personal safety, but on an honest attempt to answer the question "Where can I be most useful?". A lot of them work for the defense/intelligence community in one capacity or another.

3. Many warbloggers have already done their part by serving in the military.

Posted by ObsidianOrder

Anonymous said...

Antimedia sez: "For all the lefties - if you believe in YOUR cause, why aren't you fighting on the side of the "insurgents"? Chicken???? "

This is typical of the black and white, binary thinking you guys do. Are you really incapable of understanding that the world isn't as simple as you paint it? Just because the US is in the wrong on the Iraq invasion doesn't mean the Sunni radical insurgents are in the right and morally blameless. Far from it. Not that you would understand but here's a news flash for you sweet buns: we don't have to do squat but watch you cry when it all comes crashing down. You are losing. Have a nice day.


Posted by Steve Gardner

Anonymous said...

ObsidianOrder sez: "Many warbloggers have already done their part by serving in the military."

Well la dee fuckin' da. Who cares? That doesn't win this one does it? I ain't fighting it because I don't believe in it. And you ain't fighting it because you've "already done your part". So who's gonna fight all these wars your republican friends cook up? If you right wingers don't fight it then I guess you better get ready for defeat. (Actually, no matter what you do sweet buns its all over but the crying anyway. As I have pointed out before the cause is lost. Just get over it and move on. The Empire is dead.) 

Posted by Steve Gardner

Anonymous said...

This in for Beatnik Joe and the other righties, if you won't sign up for the infantry here is a way to support the wounded. Soldier's Angels.

Welcome to Soldiers' Angels...Soldiers' Angels currently supports thousands of American Service Members stationed wherever we raise our Country's Flag and the number is growing daily. We also work tirelessly supporting our Wounded Soldiers, with transitional backpacks, personal visits, phone calls, etc. Additionally, we send our thanks via letters and email to the military of Great Britain, Poland and Australia who serve by our soldiers' side in Iraq.

Soldiers' Angels are 100 percent volunteer run and dedicated to ensuring that our military know they are loved and supported during and after their deployment into harm's way. All Donations from this store go to providing backbacks filled with needed items for the wounded. A community of Angels volunteer daily to provide aid and comfort to our military and their families. Join the many Soldiers' Angels to ensure that no soldier goes unloved.

If you would like to assist in adopting a Soldier, Sailor, Airman or Marine or know of one who wishes to receive mail and care packages from home, Please help Support Our Troops today!

If you would rather send body armor to help prevent loss of life or wonding here is the link:

Sign up or shut up...or at least raise some money to
protect our soldiers, guards and reservists.


Posted by treehugger

Anonymous said...

I Wonder: How does Joining the Army Invalidate any Arguments against the War in Iraq?

It simply shows his conviction to follow thru with his Beliefs, right or Wrong. 

Posted by S.D.

Anonymous said...

I just signed up with Soldier's Angels to send 3 back packs to wounded soldiers. I don't support the war but I support our soldiers. I am a registered Green Party member and prefer trees to bombs. I am against war but I don't want to shun the soldiers when they come back like was done after Vietnam.

I am sure Beatnik Joe and all the other righties will join me in finding meaningful work for our wonded Vets as a way to show their support.

There is nothing bigger than the heart of a volunteer. 

Posted by treehugger

Anonymous said...

Refute this argument Beatnik Joe:

Charlie C. Carlson II, Command Sergeant-Major USA Ret., also posted on the MFSO website. He wrote: "My son recently returned from the Iraq War, his third war, and, being fed up with Bush lies and back-to-back-deployments, applied to be discharged from his 'indefinite enlistment' status. Six days later he was under investigation for making 'disloyal comments' about George Bush ... which amounted to saying in general conversation with other soldiers that 'Bush should never have started the war' and 'Bush is no military leader.'" Although "his 14 years of military service up to this point was flawless, he was an excellent soldier ... he was demoted and sentenced to 45 days of extra duty. His crime involved nothing more than expressing his personal political opinion as guaranteed under the Bill of Rights, the very document that he had risked his life defending."

We have a problem here Mr. Bush

Posted by treehugger

Anonymous said...

"Although his 14 years of military service up to this point was flawless, he was an excellent soldier ... he was demoted and sentenced to 45 days of extra duty. His crime involved nothing more than expressing his personal political opinion as guaranteed under the Bill of Rights, the very document that he had risked his life defending."

Yet more evidence that this war isn't about freedom. It's about domination, empire, the rule of the few over the many. The Bush crew has turned the English language on its head and the clown posse of right wingers like ObsidianOrder and Beatnik Joe is lapping it up. Well, not to fear. Bush and his neocon fellow travelers have screwed it up badly and we are losing the struggle to control the world. This is a good thing. With empire comes domestic domination as well. We can't be both a free people and builders of an empire.  

Posted by Anonymous

Anonymous said...

pierette, to answer your question:
DOD Announcement 

"The Department of Defense announced today a significant increase in the death gratuity for the survivors of service members killed in action and the Servicemembers’ Group Life Insurance (SGLI) coverage for service members deployed to designated combat zones.

The Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror and Tsunami Relief Act 2005 (Public Law 109-13) increases this immediate cash payment from $12,420 to $100,000 for survivors of those whose death is as a result of hostile actions and occurred in a designated combat operation or combat zone or while training for combat or performing hazardous duty.

The supplemental also increases the maximum amount of SGLI coverage from $250,000 to $400,000 for all service members effective Sept. 1, 2005 and provides that the department will pay or reimburse the premiums to service members, who are deployed in a designated combat zone for $150,000 of SGLI coverage.

Until the effective date for the SGLI increase, the supplemental provides for a special death gratuity of $150,000, retroactive to October 7, 2001, for survivors of those whose death is in a designated combat operation or combat zone or occurred while training for combat or performing hazardous duty.

The Secretary of Defense has designated all areas where service members are in receipt of the combat zone tax exclusion as qualifying combat zones and all members deployed outside the United States on orders in support of Operation Enduring Freedom or Operation Iraqi Freedom as participating in qualifying combat operations.

Effective immediately, survivors of service members, who die in these qualifying zones or operations, will receive the increased benefits."

Does that answer your question? (I'm assuming you're not taking issue with my statement about the increases in the VA budget. If you are, I can provide those links as well, but you can certainly do your own research.)

To john manyjars, I made the same silly leap that people like you do, calling people who support the war "chickenhawks". I served six years in the Navy during the Viet Nam war. What have you   done for your country?

To steve gardner, who writes "Antimedia sez: "For all the lefties - if you believe in YOUR cause, why aren't you fighting on the side of the "insurgents"? Chicken???? "

This is typical of the black and white, binary thinking you guys do. Are you really incapable of understanding that the world isn't as simple as you paint it?"

I'm glad to see you write this, Steve. I assume you would then also condemn the silly binary thinking of the lefties who use the "chickenhawk" rhetoric to avoid serious debate? (Which is, after all, what both GB's article and my comment were parodying.)

As for your "you're losing" taunt, if you were right, you'd be condemning yourself to a future without freedom. The radical Islamists would insure that outcome for you. I'm relatively sure that's not what you really want.

But you're wrong, as any lucid analysis of what is going on in Iraq would show. 

Posted by antimedia

Anonymous said...

It seems worth repeating what the "chickenhawk" argument is and is not:

The chickenhawk argument is not that your view is invalid if you don't participate in the invasion of Iraq.

The chickenhawk argument is that your lack of participation is virtually unassailable evidence that Iraq posed and poses no significant threat to the essential national security of Americans.

To Auntie Media and her fellow chickenhawks, I ask: What would it take to get you to fight?

I know what it would take to get me to enlist. About 10 seconds after the U.S. is attacked by a rival military force and its integrity and security as a nation is under serious threat, call me Pvt. Reckonwith.

But I am just like Auntie M and the other chickenhawks in that I can see pretty clearly that U.S. national security isn't seriously threatened by Iraq, so there is no point in my joining the mission.

The chickenhawk argument may leave armchair warriors reeking of hypocrisy, but that really isn't the point. The point is it shows what they really think about the war: that it's a war of choice and that losing it, just like losing the Vietnam war, will have little effect on the day-to-day lives of Americans.

The chickenhawks are obviously pretty sure that no matter how it turns out in Iraq, they'll still be able drive their SUVs to the smoking all-you-can buffet while flying the flag and congratulating themselves on their ineffable greatness as Americans. If they thought for one second that someone was really coming over the hill to take that away by force, they would be ready to fight for their country in a flash. 

Posted by Amanda Reckonwith

Anonymous said...

On the contrary, Private Reckonwith - the chickenhawk argument is an attempt to discredit someone who supports the war by impugning his or her character. It seems to you a very effective tactic because you feel it somehow demonstrates the lack of genuine commitment on the part of advocates for the war, or perhaps somehow undermines the necessity of that struggle.

And yet, you and your comrades above fail to grasp the logical correlative of your argument - that by your criteria any support of any struggle falls short of genuine commitment if it isn't combined with direct action. Any struggle , whether it be the War in Iraq or the crusade against breast cancer, is meaningless by your logic if the advocate is not directly involved.

If I feel heart disease is a major threat to the welfare of the nation's populace but I do not immediately rush out to work in a cardiac ward or donate what few savings I have to the struggle, then by your logic I don't really feel the severity of the threat, and it isn't that much of a threat anyway.

C'mon, now - is that so hard to see? 

Posted by RS

Anonymous said...

RS draws a telling parallel: Like Saddam, heart disease is a curse upon humanity and the origin of much pain and suffering. Like Saddam, heart disease was not a credible threat to America's national security. Neither is a national emergency.

If heart disease somehow threatened the survival of America and/or its ideals and institutions, Pvt. Reckonwith, and the chickenhawks as well would not hesitate but to join directly in the battle against it. But the lack of general participation in fighting heart disease, like the lack of general participation in invading Iraq, shows that people do not believe it's a serious threat to the nation as a whole.

The question is simple RS: What would it take to get you to fight? And if the war in Iraq isn't urgent enough to require your participation, why was its hasty prosecution deemed so urgent?

Chickenhawks have every right to state their opinion on the war, as long as they admit that it's a war of choice (political expedience?) and that the consequences of losing in Iraq are not grave for America.

So the here's the simple chickenhawk challenge: convince us that there was NO CHOICE but to invade Iraq and that the survival of the U.S. and/or its ideals and institutions were credibly threatened by Saddam.

If you can make the case that a loss in Iraq, or leaving Saddam in power, would mean that I can no longer exercise my birthright to ride my Schwinn down to the 7-11, grab a cold Samuel Adams and say: `Hey baby, it's the Fourth of July,' then Pvt. Reckonwith is on a plane to Baghdad.

Posted by Amanda Reckonwith

Anonymous said...

Again, Private Reckonwith, you're coming back to the same tired stance - it's a demonstration of one's seriousness that you're looking for. Are you seriously suggesting that there is any sort of objective correlative between the numbers of people who perceive a threat and suggest that threat exists and the actual seriousness of that threat?

Nor do I think you understand the principle of falsifiability. The case has been made, several times over, that Iraq was a logical next target in the war on terror - check, for example, almost anything written by Victor Hanson in the last two years or so, just as a beginning.

The point is - it's up to you to establish the case AGAINST the intervention. Nor do you score points by attempting to dictate the terms under which someone who advocates the war can or cannot speak. Your comments show that in the end what you wish to do is to limit the advocacy of war supporters by a less-than-logical equating of the alleged strength of their support with the soundness of their position.

Again, I repeat - by your logic, any stance one takes is of no value and the cause is of no worth unless you and a significant number of people are engaged in DIRECT action on its behalf. You can go 'round the moon if you wish to say otherwise, but that's what it comes down to.

You may feel you're gaining a certain amount of psychic validation by throwing out this particular trope, but the truth of the matter is that you and the other supporters of the "chickenhawk" position are surging down a blind alley.

We won't even begin to consider how absurd your contention that heart disease isn't a serious problem - how's that? Now come back and demonstrate to me how I'm wrong because it takes numbers, direct action, and demonstration of commitment that meets YOUR test for any cause to be valid.


Posted by RS

Anonymous said...

RS: you keep misrepresenting my statements. I can only repeat: it's not about chickenhawks' right to comment. It's about what their failure to enlist--or take a mercenary job through Halliburton et. al.--says about this war.

I'll ask again, RS: what would it take to get you to fight? If the Iraq war isn't urgent enough to make you enlist, why was such a hasty invasion necessary?

Just to repeat again, as you see to have a very hard time understanding the point: You and all chickenhawks have every right to comment on the war. But you do need to explain why so few Americans are willing to fight in Iraq.

This simple point has been made by myself and several others repeatedly, but you keep dodging it. One more chance: what would it take to make you enlist, or take a security job with Brown and Root, et. al.?

Posted by Amanda Reckonwith

Anonymous said...

A much more capable, informed analysis of the question is here :

``The Army now has 37 active combat brigades—10 in Iraq, one in South Korea (another one, which used to be there, is now among the 10 in Iraq), and one in Afghanistan. That's 12 brigades deployed to hot spots. What about the other 25?

``Nine have recently returned from Iraq or Afghanistan (the rule is 12 months out, 12 months back home—though some units have seen their overseas tours stretched);
15 are in training;
one is reconstituting around the new Stryker combat vehicle.
``It would be possible to put a few more of these brigades on the battlefield. Soldiers could be given less training and be allowed less time at their home bases. But the chiefs know that if they did that, they would soon have a disgruntled, ill-prepared Army—and a smaller Army, too, since such strains would torpedo recruitment and re-enlistment rates, which even now are falling well below target. (Soldiers and civilians might feel differently if the war in Iraq were truly a war of national survival or a titanic struggle of civilizations. During World War II, after all, millions were perfunctorily trained before shipping out to Europe or the Pacific, and they stayed there for years until the fighting was over. But the stakes of the present war are far less momentous.)


Posted by Amanda Reckonwith

Anonymous said...

Chickenhawks have every right to state their opinion on the war, as long as they admit that it's a war of choice (political expedience?) and that the consequences of losing in Iraq are not grave for America. 

On the contrary, Private Reckonwith, it seems that it is exactly about the right of alleged "chickenhawks" to comment. Moreover, you insist that you've somehow proven something about the nature of the war itself by focusing on the motives of those who support it. How does the one connect to the other?

And why does it matter what would it take for me or anyone else to participate? What will that establish? Let's try an analogy, if you like. World War II - 1941. America unquestionably under attack from a hostile, fascist power. Did Americans rush to enlist? Yes, they did. Did all Americans? No - there were many who did not for a variety of reasons, some principled (conscientious objectors, for example), some not (such as the CPUSA who opposed the war until it became clear to them that the USSR no longer sympathized with the Axis Powers).

I seriously doubt you would argue that America's national security was not under threat in that instance. Yet I ask you - was the magnitude of that threat diminished even to the slightest degree by the fact that not EVERY single able-bodied American of military age joined up, or took jobs in defense plants, or in some other tangible direct way contributed to the war effort? Even had a minority of Americans chosen to enlist, did that in any way diminish the reality of the threat faced? Disparage those who did not act, if you will, but you have ultimately demonstrated nothing about the war itself.

You've caught onto an attractive trope, and I understand its appeal to you, but again understand that you are doing nothing besides thumbing your nose at supporters of the war.

How about this - since I have no interest in trying to limit anyone's speech, or to impeach the credibility of someone's stance based on what I judge to be the righteousness of their commitment, and moreover since no reasonable person judges the validity of a proposition based simply on the number of its supporters and what steps they take - what say you go on calling everyone who supports the war a "chickenhawk." If it makes you feel good, elaborate on that and fling some really imaginative invective - goodness knows, others certainly haven't hesitated.

But how about, as the American patriot that you represent yourself to be, you put your money where your mouth is - make a case to the public to end the war. Spare no expense, let nothing hinder you. Convince every last American voter. If you've got a job, resign. Win over the Congress, the media, and public opinion. Until you are willing to go to that extent, then by your criteria there is no sincerity to your position, and clearly you don't really believe in your own opposition to the war. One more chance, as you so aptly put it: what would it take to make you devote your life and your every waking moment to the cause of peace?

Posted by Anonymous

Anonymous said...

Sounds like if you both agree one goes and enlists and the other goes to make peace.

We are in a war that was chosen by this Administration without the full support of its military. Colin Powell didn't really want to go to war but was forced to.

We were taken to war by an Administration that had no experience in war but knew they wanted to go to war. 9-11 doesn't equal Iraq so that is where the rub is.

I feel that we have been manipulated into war. Before WW2 there wasn't much interest in going to war. After Pearl Harbor 1 million signed up. After the Gulf of Tonkin we went full bore into Vietnam. Afte 9-11 we went into Afghanistan but didn't achieve our goal and some time later decided to go to Iraq. Where was the intel that Osama went to Iraq?

We are there and need to get out. How we do it is the question. Bushites don't seem to have a plan, cus Dubya could have told us last week but didn't. I just want to hear some truth from this Admnistration.


Posted by treehugger

Anonymous said...

Anonymous writes: ``you've somehow proven something about the nature of the war itself by focusing on the motives of those who support it.''

No proof, just evidence. The existence of Chickenhawk Nation suggests that there is no national emergency. Is it proof the war in Iraq is not a war of self-defense? No, again, not proof, but unassailable evidence.

Anonymous points out, correctly that Americans "rushed to enlist" in World War II. That's because it was a war of self-defense, not a war of choice and political expedience. There was no such rush to enlist for the Iraq war, which is EVIDENCE that the war is not one of self-defense, not urgent and not a national emergency.

Lastly: anonymous, please look up the word "analogy" in the dictionary, you keep misusing it to mean comparison.


Posted by Amanda Reckonwith

Anonymous said...

Furthermore: Anonymous is dead right that war opponents failure to drop everything and focus on impeaching Bush is EVIDENCE that stopping the war is not yet a national emergency.

The crisis Cheney-Bush has brought about is the incremental destruction of our economy and ratcheting down of the culture of free-thought and independent news media.

If I thought for a second the administration was a fascist dictatorship that could not and would not be voted out, I would have been leading a regiment plotting an attack on Crawford, Texas, etc. singin' Hey Baby, It's the Fourth of July!! 

Posted by Amanda Reckonwith

Anonymous said...

Sounds like if you both agree one goes and enlists and the other goes to make peace. 

No, Treehugger, there is no positive obligation on the part of Ms. Reckonwith to join the ranks of the peace movement. She has the right to make her argument against the war and have it judged on its merits regardless of what she does or does not do in her personal life.

What she can't logically do is to attempt to exclude someone from making that argument or its opposite by attacking their motivations and commitment. Not, at least, if she wants to mount a coherent case. I personally share Victor Hanson's notion that most wars are not a choice between "good" and "bad" but rather, between "bad" and "worse." The question of the war in Iraq is a thorny issue about which there is wide room for a difference of opinion, clearly leaving room for debate.

But that debate is not advanced by the "chickenhawk" meme. The merits or faults of the war exist independently of the motives or degree of commitment of those who support or oppose it. That someone does or does not enlist in the armed forces or join Moveon.Org has no real bearing on the issue of the war itself. It is a sideshow, and a distraction from the real debate.

In other words, if someone wants to impugn my commitment to my argument, fine and good. But don't deceive yourself into thinking that you've proven anything substantial about the war itself in doing so.


Posted by RS

Anonymous said...

Ms. Reckonwith - careful, you're descending into the type of rhetoric that you promised yourself you would avoid before posting on a ReThuglican website. I would suggest that you examine the rhetorical use of "analogy" in argumentation,but that would detract from the point here.

Your citing of a "chickenhawk nation" as evidence of anything begs the question just a wee bit, as does your follow-up by noting the absence of an organized peace movement.

How can you legitimately weigh the merits of something based on the sheer numbers of active, vocal supporters? What does that demonstrate about the fundamental rightness or wrongness of the argument? I mean, I've heard it before, from my kids - "Geez, all the other kids are doing it" - but it wasn't exactly persuasive then either.

Ms. Reckonwith, I do not make up my mind about the rightness or wrongness, the seriousness or lack of gravity of an argument, or a cause, solely based on whether it is supported by the mass of the population. Nor am I so infantile as to measure the degree of one's commitment to a cause as in any way related to its validity. Al Qaeda believe passionately in their cause, and take action - that demonstrates exactly what?

But it's important to you to have the last word, I can tell, so over to you. Forget that you've contradicted yourself numerous times already and descended into hyperbole. Tell everyone how bad the awful chickenhawks are, in their chickenhawk nation. Believe you've proven something about the war.

Or don't. Maybe, instead, you could frame a reasoned case against the war in Iraq?  

Posted by RS

Anonymous said...

RS writes: ``How can you legitimately weigh the merits of something based on the sheer numbers of active, vocal supporters?''

The point is that the war in Iraq is unpopular and more important, apparently, is a massive gap between the number of people who say they support the war and the number who are willing to fight in it.

You want to pretend that the chickenhawk argument says that this alone proves the war is wrong-headed, but no one has claimed that. Rather, the claim is simply that the war is unpopular.

If we can stipulate that Americans are brave and would not hesitate to defend the country if necessary, we can logically conclude that their failure to volunteer to do so in Iraq means that, for them, it is not a war of self-defense.

I've tried to lay out that logic for you several times in a row, and you still don't get. I apologize to other readers for this little side show, but I think RS will eventually come around to understanding the argument, at least.

Lastly, I have no idea what RS is on about with this: ``you promised yourself you would avoid before posting on a ReThuglican website.''

WTF is that all about??? 

Posted by Amanda Reckonwith

Anonymous said...

If we can stipulate that Americans are brave and would not hesitate to defend the country if necessary, we can logically conclude that their failure to volunteer to do so in Iraq means that, for them, it is not a war of self-defense. 

I know I promised the last word to you Ms. Beckwith, and I promise you've got it after this. But your statement practically begs a reply.

Granted, we can, for the purpose of debate, stipulate that Americans are a brave people, willing to defend their homeland. That by some reckoning people are not enlisting in the volunteer military in sufficient numbers to satisfy you does not signify the second stage of the syllogism that would then conclude that for them this war is unimportant. It leaves no room for assuming, for example, that your appreciation of troop strength is in error, or for any sort of possibility that maybe the American public feels the volunteer military is getting the job done better than partisans might think (or wish to believe).

All you're left with, really, after lengthy disquisition, is the assertion that this war is unpopular. That may or may not prove to be the case - I honestly don't know what public sentiment is on this one, nor does that have any bearing on the rightness or wrongness of the war in Iraq. You see, in the end your point is all about public perception and what you allege it to be based on some rather flimsy reasoning.

Again, I challenge you to make a case against the war in Iraq that doesn't rely on your reading of public perceptions and what that might or might not signify. You and yours took up a trope that wasn't sufficiently thought through and sallied forth to attack supporters of the war. You've fired your bolt. If it'll help you any, I'll screech "Ow, I am wounded by the fact that your perception of public perceptions leads you to perceive that this war is not popular and therefore I am a chickenhawk!", what other ammunition do you have in your arsenal? You see things far more clearly than the rest of us, So - make. the. case.


Posted by RS

Anonymous said...

RS: the case against the war in Iraq is simple:

1. containment was working. Saddam had not rearmed, significantly and was not in any position to invade a neighbor. The containment policy was imperfect, but not by any stretch as imperfect as the invasion has proven. Given more time, the weapons inspectors would have found the same thing the U.S. military has: that there were no WMDs. This would have allowed the U.S to remain focused on stabilizing and rebuilding Afghanistan.

2. We can't pay for the war. U.S. borrowing is dangerously high and it will not be long at all before rising interest rates choke off a U.S.economic recovery--indeed, some say that is already happening. Just as the existense of so many chickenhawks is evidence that people don't support the war, the unwillingness to pay for it confirms that: ditto the unwillingness of Cheney-Bush to show the resolve of demanding that Americans pay up.

3. The war in Iraq disabled moderate Arabs in neighboring states. The Abu Ghraib footage, plus daily ongoing carnage there prevents moderate leaders in the region from rallying support for the U.S. Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Jordan, Egypt, EVEN SYRIA, supported the first Gulf War. None of these regimes had any love for Saddam's. Now, none have any realistic chances of becoming stronger U.S. Allies.


Posted by Amanda Reckonwith

Anonymous said...

Hey, mister Keyboard Kommando, if you like the war so much, why don’t you go and fight it, you little chickenhawk? Buc-buc-buc bu'CAW!!! 

Posted by ihatebush209

Anonymous said...

Let's get this straight, bozos: if you haven't been in combat, you are not qualified to call for sending somebody else to die for you.

Hundreds of thousands of liberals have been in combat and many have died or been wounded, many horribly, and those surviving combat veterans presently find the prospect of sending off anybody  to die for a pack of lies to be hypocrisy of the highest order.

We call you keyboard commandos because you demonstrate from your posts that you can't supply a DD214 or an active service military ID card and thereby enter the ranks of those who speak from experience. In other words, if you haven't had your boots on the ground, you are not even entitled to an opinion. Period. Until you do serve, you may sit in the peanut gallery and make hooting noises, but your opinion doesn't mean spit to me or to any other veteran, left, right or center.

I work daily with veterans of all theatres and wars, police operations and occupations, officers and enlisted, and, to a man, they affirm that the present incursion into Iraq is a terrible example of 1) American foreign policy and 2)the most badly managed combat operation ever mounted by the armed forces of the United States.

Now, until or unless you can demonstrate veteran or active duty status, I suggest you shut the *#$* up, and stop volunteering somebody else to shed their blood for you, you gutless wonders.


Posted by fazzaz31

Anonymous said...

Resume the Draft!

Then you'll see the war(s) over in short order.

Republicans are anti-Christian.

Have a nice day, asshats! 

Posted by Truth Speaker



Powered by Blogger.