Is there anything in life worse to be than an armchair chickenhawk?

[martybegan]

Sorry, dude, but if you are able bodied and call for war you damn well better be prepared to fight in it.

If there was a draft, then yes, i would agree with ya. But as our force is voluenteer, and there was no massive call for voluenteers as the british did during early WWI there is no stigma attached to supporting millitary solutions to problems without being in the millitatry.

Again, we have CIVILIAN control of our armed forces.

I'm aware of who controls the armed forces. I am also aware that there is no draft today.

However, that does not make the able bodied person calling for a war that they are unwilling to fight in any less of cowardly monster who has no problem sending people off to their death as long as they don't have to go along too.

So that makes the president a coward? what about generals? even though they are in uniform, they really dont do any fighting. They send people into fights all the time.

All your posturing is just a way to put down people who disagree with you, and score cheap debating points. Again your logic is false, i.e. my firefighter analogy. Supporting a decsion to go to war without going yourself in a volunteer military sitation holds no cowardice.

 

[Article 15]

If there was a draft, then yes, i would agree with ya. But as our force is voluenteer, and there was no massive call for voluenteers as the british did during early WWI there is no stigma attached to supporting millitary solutions to problems without being in the millitatry.

Again, we have CIVILIAN control of our armed forces.

I'm aware of who controls the armed forces. I am also aware that there is no draft today.

However, that does not make the able bodied person calling for a war that they are unwilling to fight in any less of cowardly monster who has no problem sending people off to their death as long as they don't have to go along too.

Is this sinking in yet?

You mean like liberals who advocate others pay more in taxes but refuse to send more of their money to the government?

No, because those liberals you speak of are subject to the same tax increases as everyone else.

 

[Dr.Drock]

So you ignore my whole firefighter analogy? Weak.

Our society is one of specialization. Again if it was a draft, one would be obligated to go. But no draft, well, one doesnt.

Firefighting and war-fighting aren't even close either, trying to spin something into a lateral comparison to a soldier on a battlefield shows an unappreciation for the danger these people are in.

Which would also be a reason why someone would demand others go on a battlefield facing the spraying of bullets while they sit on a sofa with remote in hand.

I have no delusions of how hard fighting on a battelfied are. My grandfather is a WWII vet and tells me all the time about what he went through.

Sometimes people have to fight. In our society, with a volenteer military we ask people to sign up and do the fighting for us, with our support. In the case of a draft, it is the country as a whole asking all its people to fight. In the case of a draft, one who supports the war should be ready to fight it when thier number comes up. Without a draft, there is no issue with supporting a war, but not fighting it. Again, our current setup is a volenteer military.

The logic you are using is almost like that seen in the starship troopers movies and books, where to vote you have to have served in the military. Is that what you want?

I'm purely talking about morals and opinions. It boggles my mind that people are so 100% willing to openly talk about and cheer on the certain death of thousands of soldiers when they themselves won't even so much as take a desk job to make it easier for those soldiers to get new toothbrushes.

People should be willing to allocate their funds (taxes) in any which way they want in terms of voting etc, but in my opinion you're a coward to tell others to go put their lives on the line while you cower in your room.

 

[martybegan]

Your analogy is weak. There is a big difference between fire fighting and fucking war, dude.

No, it isnt. fire fighters risk thier lives. by your logic If I want a fire fought, I have to join up, be a fire fighter, and do it myself. If I am not a fire fighter, again by your logic, then I have no right to ask another person to fight the fires, if I am not willing to do it myself.

Pure nonsense. Putting out fires where there is the risk that you may be killed in an accident is not on par with willfully sending people to a place where thousands are actively trying to kill them.

Logically its exactly the same thing. You just fail to grasp it, or just dont want to accept it.

 

[Article 15]

If there was a draft, then yes, i would agree with ya. But as our force is voluenteer, and there was no massive call for voluenteers as the british did during early WWI there is no stigma attached to supporting millitary solutions to problems without being in the millitatry.

Again, we have CIVILIAN control of our armed forces.

I'm aware of who controls the armed forces. I am also aware that there is no draft today.

However, that does not make the able bodied person calling for a war that they are unwilling to fight in any less of cowardly monster who has no problem sending people off to their death as long as they don't have to go along too.

So that makes the president a coward? what about generals? even though they are in uniform, they really dont do any fighting. They send people into fights all the time.

All your posturing is just a way to put down people who disagree with you, and score cheap debating points. Again your logic is false, i.e. my firefighter analogy. Supporting a decsion to go to war without going yourself in a volunteer military sitation holds no cowardice.

The President?

OF COURSE HE'S A COWARD!

Do you think those Generals were Generals when they signed up? That their lives aren't in any danger in a war zone?

 

[Article 15]

No, it isnt. fire fighters risk thier lives. by your logic If I want a fire fought, I have to join up, be a fire fighter, and do it myself. If I am not a fire fighter, again by your logic, then I have no right to ask another person to fight the fires, if I am not willing to do it myself.

Pure nonsense. Putting out fires where there is the risk that you may be killed in an accident is not on par with willfully sending people to a place where thousands are actively trying to kill them.

Logically its exactly the same thing. You just fail to grasp it, or just dont want to accept it.

Nah, dude, logically it ain't. Not the same thing. Not close.

 

[Dr.Drock]

If there was a draft, then yes, i would agree with ya. But as our force is voluenteer, and there was no massive call for voluenteers as the british did during early WWI there is no stigma attached to supporting millitary solutions to problems without being in the millitatry.

Again, we have CIVILIAN control of our armed forces.

I'm aware of who controls the armed forces. I am also aware that there is no draft today.

However, that does not make the able bodied person calling for a war that they are unwilling to fight in any less of cowardly monster who has no problem sending people off to their death as long as they don't have to go along too.

Is this sinking in yet?

You mean like liberals who advocate others pay more in taxes but refuse to send more of their money to the government?

Any liberal who advocates for more government and/or more spending without wanting their individual taxes to be higher or another part of gov't to be cut is a hypocrit, but we're still not talking about the risking of lives.

Again, there is no lateral comparison to asking soldiers to fight when there's a 100% guarantee that many will die.

 

[Article 15]

I'm aware of who controls the armed forces. I am also aware that there is no draft today.

However, that does not make the able bodied person calling for a war that they are unwilling to fight in any less of cowardly monster who has no problem sending people off to their death as long as they don't have to go along too.

Is this sinking in yet?

You mean like liberals who advocate others pay more in taxes but refuse to send more of their money to the government?

Any liberal who advocates for more government and/or more spending without wanting their individual taxes to be higher or another part of gov't to be cut is a hypocrit, but we're still not talking about the risking of lives.

Again, there is no lateral comparison to asking soldiers to fight when there's a 100% guarantee that many will die.

Don't mind, Daveman ... he can't help but inject partisan talking points, that's pretty much all he does around here.

 

[martybegan]

Firefighting and war-fighting aren't even close either, trying to spin something into a lateral comparison to a soldier on a battlefield shows an unappreciation for the danger these people are in.

Which would also be a reason why someone would demand others go on a battlefield facing the spraying of bullets while they sit on a sofa with remote in hand.

I have no delusions of how hard fighting on a battelfied are. My grandfather is a WWII vet and tells me all the time about what he went through.

Sometimes people have to fight. In our society, with a volenteer military we ask people to sign up and do the fighting for us, with our support. In the case of a draft, it is the country as a whole asking all its people to fight. In the case of a draft, one who supports the war should be ready to fight it when thier number comes up. Without a draft, there is no issue with supporting a war, but not fighting it. Again, our current setup is a volenteer military.

The logic you are using is almost like that seen in the starship troopers movies and books, where to vote you have to have served in the military. Is that what you want?

I'm purely talking about morals and opinions. It boggles my mind that people are so 100% willing to openly talk about and cheer on the certain death of thousands of soldiers when they themselves won't even so much as take a desk job to make it easier for those soldiers to get new toothbrushes.

People should be willing to allocate their funds (taxes) in any which way they want in terms of voting etc, but in my opinion you're a coward to tell others to go put their lives on the line while you cower in your room.

Who's cowering in his room? Again, where were the government pleas for more soliders, above and beyond what they were already recruiting? Where was the propaganda campaign that begged people to sign up?

Your argument is only valid in the situation of a draft, where some gung-ho idiot tires to 4-F his ass out of serving when he is called. Our military has decided they only want people who want to join, and who meet the qualifications to join, to actually serve. I went throuh this myself when I applied to ROTC and got rejected as I was very out of shape. (This was right after gulf war I as well, so the armed forces could be very selective at the time, lots of people were signing up)

All this yammering you are doing is nothing more than trying to score cheap poltical points.

 

[uscitizen]

Is there anything in life worse to be than an armchair chickenhawk?

Yes.

War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.

John Stuart Mill​

so you agree then? The whole thing about armchair chickenhawks is that they want others to fight for what they want, but they do not want to go fight.

The congressional armchair chickenhawks that have never even served in military are the worst breed of the armchair chickenhawks.

 

[martybegan]

Pure nonsense. Putting out fires where there is the risk that you may be killed in an accident is not on par with willfully sending people to a place where thousands are actively trying to kill them.

Logically its exactly the same thing. You just fail to grasp it, or just dont want to accept it.

Nah, dude, logically it ain't. Not the same thing. Not close.

If you want someone else to do thing A, then you must be willing to do thing A as well.

Thats the resoning you are using, and in our specialized society it is wrong.

I expect firefighters to put our fires, I expect police officers to capture criminals, I expect soldiers to fight i wars that the government tells them to fight in. All of these things have people risking thier lives, and all of them are things expected of others, where I do not have to do the same thing they do.

 

[Two Thumbs]

"I want you to go potentially die for my political opinion."



If soldiers are out preaching for war with Iran, North Korea etc, so be it. But it's always amazed me how people can go as far as demanding more war when they're completely unwilling to make any sacrifice whatsoever for that cause.

I get what you're saying. And I would love it if military service was a requirment for someone to serve as a pol in DC.

but we don't and won't

So all we can do is hope that the pols do diplomacy as best they can before we are forced to go to war.

 

[martybegan]

Is there anything in life worse to be than an armchair chickenhawk?

Yes.

War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.

John Stuart Mill​

so you agree then? The whole thing about armchair chickenhawks is that they want others to fight for what they want, but they do not want to go fight.

The congressional armchair chickenhawks that have never even served in military are the worst breed of the armchair chickenhawks.

So you want military service to be a qualification for being in congress? How facist. Part of being in congress includes having to declare/support war, so I guess only military vets should get in.

 

[uscitizen]

Looks like a desperate attempt at diversion going on.

Umm firefighters and such do their fighting here in OUR country and killing is not in their job description.

 

[Two Thumbs]

"I want you to go potentially die for my political opinion."



If soldiers are out preaching for war with Iran, North Korea etc, so be it. But it's always amazed me how people can go as far as demanding more war when they're completely unwilling to make any sacrifice whatsoever for that cause.

That line of logic does not hold water. That is similar to saying a person does not want fires fought unless they are a fireman, or does not want streets cleaned of snow unless they go and become sanitation people and plow it themselves.

The comparison might be valid in the case of a draft, where a person who supports a given war dodges a draft call up. Our millitary is volutary, and is under civillian control.It is the natural order for it to recive direction, and support from those not in uniform.

Sorry, dude, but if you are able bodied and call for war you damn well better be prepared to fight in it.

Great idea in theory.

Try Bootcamp, you will come across many able bodied people that can't cut the life of a servicman, and some that aren't so able go above and beyond just to make it.

 

[Dr.Drock]

I have no delusions of how hard fighting on a battelfied are. My grandfather is a WWII vet and tells me all the time about what he went through.

Sometimes people have to fight. In our society, with a volenteer military we ask people to sign up and do the fighting for us, with our support. In the case of a draft, it is the country as a whole asking all its people to fight. In the case of a draft, one who supports the war should be ready to fight it when thier number comes up. Without a draft, there is no issue with supporting a war, but not fighting it. Again, our current setup is a volenteer military.

The logic you are using is almost like that seen in the starship troopers movies and books, where to vote you have to have served in the military. Is that what you want?

I'm purely talking about morals and opinions. It boggles my mind that people are so 100% willing to openly talk about and cheer on the certain death of thousands of soldiers when they themselves won't even so much as take a desk job to make it easier for those soldiers to get new toothbrushes.

People should be willing to allocate their funds (taxes) in any which way they want in terms of voting etc, but in my opinion you're a coward to tell others to go put their lives on the line while you cower in your room.

Who's cowering in his room? Again, where were the government pleas for more soliders, above and beyond what they were already recruiting? Where was the propaganda campaign that begged people to sign up?

Your argument is only valid in the situation of a draft, where some gung-ho idiot tires to 4-F his ass out of serving when he is called. Our military has decided they only want people who want to join, and who meet the qualifications to join, to actually serve. I went throuh this myself when I applied to ROTC and got rejected as I was very out of shape. (This was right after gulf war I as well, so the armed forces could be very selective at the time, lots of people were signing up)

All this yammering you are doing is nothing more than trying to score cheap poltical points.

YOU SHOULD WANT TO JOIN IF YOU THINK A WAR IS NECESSARY!!!

You should want to go and risk your life if you feel war is inevitable and a must fight, you should want to go and put your life on the line if you're 100% certain a war should be fought.

Score cheap political points? On an anonymous message board? I hate both parties, I don't want points from either side even though I have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[martybegan]

Looks like a desperate attempt at diversion going on.

Umm firefighters and such do their fighting here in OUR country and killing is not in their job description.

The only diversion going on is those who go with this whole chickenhawk line of argument.

its a logic thing, again look at my post where I spell it out without going into roles.

When you say only soldiers can support a war, it is saying the same thing logically as only firefighters can support fighting fires.

 

[Article 15]

Logically its exactly the same thing. You just fail to grasp it, or just dont want to accept it.

Nah, dude, logically it ain't. Not the same thing. Not close.

If you want someone else to do thing A, then you must be willing to do thing A as well.

Thats the resoning you are using, and in our specialized society it is wrong.

I expect firefighters to put our fires, I expect police officers to capture criminals, I expect soldiers to fight i wars that the government tells them to fight in. All of these things have people risking thier lives, and all of them are things expected of others, where I do not have to do the same thing they do.

You are trying to compare standard domestic law enforcement and firefighting to sending troops on a war campaign. It's apples and oranges, a square peg in a round hole, etc. Not the same. Your line of logic does not fit.

 

[Article 15]

That line of logic does not hold water. That is similar to saying a person does not want fires fought unless they are a fireman, or does not want streets cleaned of snow unless they go and become sanitation people and plow it themselves.

The comparison might be valid in the case of a draft, where a person who supports a given war dodges a draft call up. Our millitary is volutary, and is under civillian control.It is the natural order for it to recive direction, and support from those not in uniform.

Sorry, dude, but if you are able bodied and call for war you damn well better be prepared to fight in it.

Great idea in theory.

Try Bootcamp, you will come across many able bodied people that can't cut the life of a servicman, and some that aren't so able go above and beyond just to make it.

I've been to Basic and I have been to war.

 

[martybegan]

I'm purely talking about morals and opinions. It boggles my mind that people are so 100% willing to openly talk about and cheer on the certain death of thousands of soldiers when they themselves won't even so much as take a desk job to make it easier for those soldiers to get new toothbrushes.

People should be willing to allocate their funds (taxes) in any which way they want in terms of voting etc, but in my opinion you're a coward to tell others to go put their lives on the line while you cower in your room.

Who's cowering in his room? Again, where were the government pleas for more soliders, above and beyond what they were already recruiting? Where was the propaganda campaign that begged people to sign up?

Your argument is only valid in the situation of a draft, where some gung-ho idiot tires to 4-F his ass out of serving when he is called. Our military has decided they only want people who want to join, and who meet the qualifications to join, to actually serve. I went throuh this myself when I applied to ROTC and got rejected as I was very out of shape. (This was right after gulf war I as well, so the armed forces could be very selective at the time, lots of people were signing up)

All this yammering you are doing is nothing more than trying to score cheap poltical points.

YOU SHOULD WANT TO JOIN IF YOU THINK A WAR IS NECESSARY!!!

You should want to go and risk your life if you feel war is inevitable and a must fight, you should want to go and put your life on the line if you're 100% a war should be fought.

Score cheap political points? On an anonymous message board? I hate both parties, I don't want points from either side even though I have no idea what you're talking about.

Nope. thats not how our society is setup. We have people who specialize in things, and those who specialize in war are called soliders. We must support them, and only use them when absolutely nessasary, but we do not have to become them to decide we need to use them. The only time this is not valid is in times of war that require a draft. In that case if you support the war, you go when called.