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

[martybegan]

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.

Logically it fits fine. you are the one adding caveats and exceptions.

Again all this goes away in time of draft, but until then, there is nothing morally wrong from beleving a war is just and not serving, for whatever reason.

 

[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.

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.

Only the soldiers do the actual supporting of the war.
Without the soldeirs support there could be no war.
I think you are using the wrong definition of support.

 

[Article 15]

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.

Logically it fits fine. you are the one adding caveats and exceptions.

Again all this goes away in time of draft, but until then, there is nothing morally wrong from beleving a war is just and not serving, for whatever reason.

Maybe in your world fire fighting and serving in a war are comparable. They're not.

 

[daveman]

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.

Wrong. The liberal mantra is "Tax the rich!" They don't want to pay more.

 

[daveman]

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.

Firefighters die. Policemen die. EMTs die.

 

[Article 15]

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.

Wrong. The liberal mantra is "Tax the rich!" They don't want to pay more.

Many of those liberals are "the rich" or if they become "the rich" they are subject to the same tax increases.

 

[daveman]

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.

Hey, if liberals stopped being hypocrites, I'd stop pointing it out.

 

[Two Thumbs]

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.

Then why did you say that?

Knowing an able body doesn't mean you can serve?

 

[daveman]

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 only veterans in Congress?

I'm good with that.

 

[Dr.Drock]

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.

The only time drafts are necessary are when armchair chickenhawks tell our politicians to go to war without signing up to go to it themselves.

If your in favor of a war you should start eating healthier and working out to try and get yourself in good enough shape to go fight, that's the type of commitment being pro-war should take and what I would do if there were ever a war to be fought that I believed in.

If you get yourself in the best shape possible and STILL aren't good enough to be a soldier on the battlefield that's fine, then go sign up and help administratively, go recruit, train yourself medically and help the injured.

That's the problem with society is we don't think going to war and being in favor of war should require any individual commitment, just demand a life's worth of commitment from someone else. Pathetic

 

[Dr.Drock]

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.

Hey, if liberals stopped being hypocrites, I'd stop pointing it out.

It's the same thing as when a "conservative" says "WE should go to war" when he doesn't really mean we he means they.

 

[daveman]

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

Wrong. The liberal mantra is "Tax the rich!" They don't want to pay more.

Many of those liberals are "the rich" or if they become "the rich" they are subject to the same tax increases.

And they take advantage of loopholes just like those eeeeevil rich conservatives. So...more hypocrisy.

 

[Article 15]

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.

Then why did you say that?

Knowing an able body doesn't mean you can serve?

Why did I say that?

Because I meant it. At least those that went to Basic and failed, tried.

 

[daveman]

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

Hey, if liberals stopped being hypocrites, I'd stop pointing it out.

It's the same thing as when a "conservative" says "WE should go to war" when he doesn't really mean we he means they.

He means "we" as in "the entire nation". The entire nation went to war in WWII.

 

[martybegan]

And again, If I want fires fought, I should get healthier, and sign up for the fire department. If I want criminals caught, I should get healthier and become a policeman, If I dont, then I shouldnt expect firemen to fight fires, and policemen to catch criminals.

Again, no draft, no need to sign up unless you choose to sign up.

Honestly, do you really think soliders want people next to them who really cant do what soliders need to do?

 

[Dr.Drock]

Hey, if liberals stopped being hypocrites, I'd stop pointing it out.

It's the same thing as when a "conservative" says "WE should go to war" when he doesn't really mean we he means they.

He means "we" as in "the entire nation". The entire nation went to war in WWII.

The country americans lived in went to war, doesn't mean everyone who lived in america went to war or was involved.

 

[Article 15]

Wrong. The liberal mantra is "Tax the rich!" They don't want to pay more.

Many of those liberals are "the rich" or if they become "the rich" they are subject to the same tax increases.

And they take advantage of loopholes just like those eeeeevil rich conservatives. So...more hypocrisy.

So when you premise gets shot down you move on to the next partisan point ... in a thread that was non-partisan until you showed up.

Find someone else to continue this silly lib/con thing with you, it's beneath me.

 

[Dr.Drock]

And again, If I want fires fought, I should get healthier, and sign up for the fire department. If I want criminals caught, I should get healthier and become a policeman, If I dont, then I shouldnt expect firemen to fight fires, and policemen to catch criminals.

Again, no draft, no need to sign up unless you choose to sign up.

Honestly, do you really think soliders want people next to them who really cant do what soliders need to do?

I guess you'll never be able to get passed that there's NO lateral comparison or equivalent to soldier's risking their lives on a battlefield and being asked to kill other people.

You can try all day to make what you think are logical comparisons but there are none, not a single one, none even remotely close.

I think soldiers want committed help in any way they can get it, if you're committed to the principle of going to war, you should commit yourself to helping with its cause.

 

[Article 15]

And again, If I want fires fought, I should get healthier, and sign up for the fire department. If I want criminals caught, I should get healthier and become a policeman, If I dont, then I shouldnt expect firemen to fight fires, and policemen to catch criminals.

Again, no draft, no need to sign up unless you choose to sign up.

Honestly, do you really think soliders want people next to them who really cant do what soliders need to do?

I guess you'll never be able to get passed that there's NO lateral comparison or equivalent to soldier's risking their lives on a battlefield and being asked to kill other people.

You can try all day to make what you think are logical comparisons but there are none, not a single one, none even remotely close.

I think soldiers want committed help in any way they can get it, if you're committed to the principle of going to war, you should commit yourself to helping with its cause.

Nope, he can't ...

 

[uscitizen]

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

The people who complain about chickenhawks are likely are the same people who would complain about peace activists.

Nope, that is quite incorrect.