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

[editec]

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
​

Yeah?

How many battles do you suppose John Stuart Mill fought in?

Based on his bio, the anwer to that question is a big FAT ZERO.

JSM was a brilliant man, of course, but also he was of that class who never was asked to fight for the previleged class life he enjoyed.

Rich men tend to start wars that poor boys fight, folks.

 

[daveman]

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.

Really? Buying war bonds, saving grease for explosives production, carpooling, planting victory gardens, joining civil defense teams...yeah, pretty much everyone was involved.

 

[daveman]

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.

I can understand why you're uncomfortable having your side's hypocrisy exposed.

 

[Article 15]

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.

I can understand why you're uncomfortable having your side's hypocrisy exposed.

Nah, dude, it's that I don't play that game.

If I wanted to I could go off on conservative hypocrisy but it isn't my style nor is it the topic of this thread.

 

[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?

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 ...

Its not that I can't. Its that I dont have to. I can see through your attempt to boil down a debate on going to war or not into an ad hominem attack on those who agree that a war is needed. Ad hominem attacks are the primordial ooze of debate, and a rather lazy way out of an argument.

My logic is fine, it just gets in the way of your personal attacks on people, and as you cannot seem to grasp things that you dont agree with, you just push it aside and ignore it.

 

[mdn2000]

"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.

Anything worst than an ArmChair ChickenHawk, how about a simple Pacifist.

 

[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
​

Yeah?

How many battles do you suppose John Stuart Mill fought in?

Based on his bio, the anwer to that question is a big FAT ZERO.

JSM was a brilliant man, of course, but also he was of that class who never was asked to fight for the previleged class life he enjoyed.

And that negates his quote...how, exactly?

Rich men tend to start wars that poor boys fight, folks.

"Poor boys"? Can we stop repeating that lie, please?

Who Serves in the U.S. Military? The Demographics of Enlisted Troops and Officers | The Heritage Foundation

U.S. military service disproportionately attracts enlisted personnel and officerswho do not come from disadvantaged backgrounds. Previous Heritage Foundation research demonstrated that the quality of enlisted troops has increased since the start of the Iraq war. This report demonstrates that the same is true of the officer corps.

Members of the all-volunteer military are significantly more likely to come from high-income neighborhoods than from low-income neighborhoods. Only 11 percent of enlisted recruits in 2007 came from the poorest one-fifth (quintile) of neighborhoods, while 25 percent came from the wealthiest quintile. These trends are even more pronounced in the Army Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC) program, in which 40 percent of enrollees come from the wealthiest neighborhoods-a number that has increased substantially over the past four years.

American soldiers are more educated than their peers. A little more than 1 percent of enlisted personnel lack a high school degree, compared to 21 percent of men 18-24 years old, and 95 percent of officer accessions have at least a bachelor's degree.

Contrary to conventional wisdom, minorities are not overrepresented in military service. Enlisted troops are somewhat more likely to be white or black than their non-military peers. Whites are proportionately represented in the officer corps, and blacks are overrepresented, but their rate of overrepresentation has declined each year from 2004 to 2007. New recruits are also disproportionately likely to come from the South, which is in line with the history of Southern military tradition.​

 

[Dr.Drock]

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.

Really? Buying war bonds, saving grease for explosives production, carpooling, planting victory gardens, joining civil defense teams...yeah, pretty much everyone was involved.

Are you reading what I'm saying? That's exactly what I'm asking people to do, those sorts of things, if they're physically incapable of being a soldier. But only after and all avenues for physical deployment and trying to get on the battlefield are exhausted.

 

[daveman]

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.

I can understand why you're uncomfortable having your side's hypocrisy exposed.

Nah, dude, it's that I don't play that game.

If I wanted to I could go off on conservative hypocrisy but it isn't my style nor is it the topic of this thread.

Uh huh.

 

[Dr.Drock]

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 ...

Its not that I can't. Its that I dont have to. I can see through your attempt to boil down a debate on going to war or not into an ad hominem attack on those who agree that a war is needed. Ad hominem attacks are the primordial ooze of debate, and a rather lazy way out of an argument.

My logic is fine, it just gets in the way of your personal attacks on people, and as you cannot seem to grasp things that you dont agree with, you just push it aside and ignore it.

Lol every single time you've tried to make the comparison i've addressed it over and over again, what exactly have I ignored?

 

[skookerasbil]

"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.

Indeed there is.........a limpwrister sitting in front of a PC.

 

[daveman]

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

Really? Buying war bonds, saving grease for explosives production, carpooling, planting victory gardens, joining civil defense teams...yeah, pretty much everyone was involved.

Are you reading what I'm saying? That's exactly what I'm asking people to do, those sorts of things, if they're physically incapable of being a soldier. But only after and all avenues for physical deployment and trying to get on the battlefield are exhausted.

Most of Congress would be unable to enlist, for age limitations if nothing else.

 

[Dr.Drock]

"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.

Anything worst than an ArmChair ChickenHawk, how about a simple Pacifist.

A simple pacifist wants to sit on his couch and have soldiers be given the same opportunity.

An armchair chickenhawk wants to sit on his couch, making zero sacrifice while demanding others make the ultimate sacrifice.

You'll have to provide some kind of breakdown as to how a pacifist is worse than an armchair chickenhawk. I'm not a simple pacifist, but at least simple pacifists follow principle, unlike armchair chickenhawks.

 

[martybegan]

Nope, he can't ...

Its not that I can't. Its that I dont have to. I can see through your attempt to boil down a debate on going to war or not into an ad hominem attack on those who agree that a war is needed. Ad hominem attacks are the primordial ooze of debate, and a rather lazy way out of an argument.

My logic is fine, it just gets in the way of your personal attacks on people, and as you cannot seem to grasp things that you dont agree with, you just push it aside and ignore it.

Lol every single time you've tried to make the comparison i've addressed it over and over again, what exactly have I ignored?

you have addressed it, you havent countered it. You just keep going on. A rational person would admit defeat at this point, but your need to insult people who disagree with you is winning out.

But by all means, keep up with the ad hominems, it makes my job alot easier.

 

[Christopher]

"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.

Who are the people you are referring to?

If you are saying that we can judge anyone who supports a particular war yet does not voluntarily enlist in the military as a chicken hawk, I would disagree.

 

[martybegan]

"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.

Anything worst than an ArmChair ChickenHawk, how about a simple Pacifist.

A simple pacifist wants to sit on his couch and have soldiers be given the same opportunity.

An armchair chickenhawk wants to sit on his couch, making zero sacrifice while demanding others make the ultimate sacrifice.

You'll have to provide some kind of breakdown as to how a pacifist is worse than an armchair chickenhawk. I'm not a simple pacifist, but at least simple pacifists follow principle, unlike armchair chickenhawks.

And again, a person want to sit in his house, and have firemen fight fires. Where is your moral outrage at that?

a TRUE pacifist is actually a beutiful and tragic person, who is willing to basically be enslaved or killed in the name of non violence, no matter what the opponent is. They are also very rare, as they tend not to last too long.

 

[daveman]

"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.

Anything worst than an ArmChair ChickenHawk, how about a simple Pacifist.

A simple pacifist wants to sit on his couch and have soldiers be given the same opportunity.

An armchair chickenhawk wants to sit on his couch, making zero sacrifice while demanding others make the ultimate sacrifice.

You'll have to provide some kind of breakdown as to how a pacifist is worse than an armchair chickenhawk. I'm not a simple pacifist, but at least simple pacifists follow principle, unlike armchair chickenhawks.

Pacifists are the miserable creatures Mill was talking about, those who have no chance of being free unless made and kept so by men better than themselves.

 

[uscitizen]

Really? Buying war bonds, saving grease for explosives production, carpooling, planting victory gardens, joining civil defense teams...yeah, pretty much everyone was involved.

Are you reading what I'm saying? That's exactly what I'm asking people to do, those sorts of things, if they're physically incapable of being a soldier. But only after and all avenues for physical deployment and trying to get on the battlefield are exhausted.

Most of Congress would be unable to enlist, for age limitations if nothing else.

Now but did they serve when they could?
Or did they get exemptions from the draft and such?

He is not in congress but was one of the biggest warmongers of the past decade or so.
Cheney got repeated deferrels from the draft.
And Bush II declined going to Nam.
I was not nor were thousands of others given the choice to decline going to Nam.

I have served, been wounded and have killed for my country. I am against war except as a very last resort in real defense of my country.

for you armchair war hacks out there. War is HELL! it is not like a John Wayne movie.

 

[Dr.Drock]

Its not that I can't. Its that I dont have to. I can see through your attempt to boil down a debate on going to war or not into an ad hominem attack on those who agree that a war is needed. Ad hominem attacks are the primordial ooze of debate, and a rather lazy way out of an argument.

My logic is fine, it just gets in the way of your personal attacks on people, and as you cannot seem to grasp things that you dont agree with, you just push it aside and ignore it.

Lol every single time you've tried to make the comparison i've addressed it over and over again, what exactly have I ignored?

you have addressed it, you havent countered it. You just keep going on. A rational person would admit defeat at this point, but your need to insult people who disagree with you is winning out.

But by all means, keep up with the ad hominems, it makes my job alot easier.

Yes I countered it in the very 1st post I made, asking people to make the ultimate sacrifice and asking ppl to shovel snow isn't even a valid comparison.

If I said you were a coward I shouldn't have, but I do 100% think that your opinion on this subject is cowardly. If you take that as a personal insult so be it, but it's my opinion and stating opinions is the purpose of message boards.

 

[Dr.Drock]

Are you reading what I'm saying? That's exactly what I'm asking people to do, those sorts of things, if they're physically incapable of being a soldier. But only after and all avenues for physical deployment and trying to get on the battlefield are exhausted.

Most of Congress would be unable to enlist, for age limitations if nothing else.

Now but did they serve when they could?
Or did they get exemptions from the draft and such?

He is not in congress but was one of the biggest warmongers of the past decade or so.
Cheney got repeated deferrels from the draft.
And Bush II declined going to Nam.
I was not nor were thousands of others given the choice to decline going to Nam.

I have served, been wounded and killed for my country. I am against war except as a very last resort in real defense of my country.

for you armchair war hacks out there. War is HELL! it is not like a John Wayne movie.

Look at everyone who demands more war, look at Bill O'Reilly's war record, it's the same as looking at drywall yet he never wants the Iraq War to end.