The Problem of Chickendoves

[Tab]

Except they want the protections the military provides this country also. DOH!

The issue here is those that claim people who support the war should go fight it before they can support it. Well, how then can you be against the war without first experiencing it? How do you know it's wrong? because you are smarter? more "enlightened"? No, it's just the same old inconsistency and hypocrisy. Just more hiding behind the old "Don't apply the same standards to me" game they like to play.

CsG

First off the military doesn't do a whole lot of protecting IMO.

Second, it has nothing to do with need to have expirience to be opposed to/infavor of a war. It has to do with those who want the fight to do the fighting. Stop trying to be dense and not see the difference.

Actually it is you who needs to stop being dense. The issue here is the people who toss around the "chickenhawk" label and tell people who support the war to join up to show their dedication or prove their support or even their reasons. So why don't they hold themselves to the same standard they want others to hold themselves to? If they say we have to be involved to be able to hold an opinion - then shouldn't they too be involved?
It's a pretty simple concept - one that seems to escape the so called "intellectuals".

CsG

Changing subjects quickly aren't we cad?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Tabb

Except they want the protections the military provides this country also. DOH!

The issue here is those that claim people who support the war should go fight it before they can support it. Well, how then can you be against the war without first experiencing it? How do you know it's wrong? because you are smarter? more "enlightened"? No, it's just the same old inconsistency and hypocrisy. Just more hiding behind the old "Don't apply the same standards to me" game they like to play.

CsG

First off the military doesn't do a whole lot of protecting IMO.

Second, it has nothing to do with need to have expirience to be opposed to/infavor of a war. It has to do with those who want the fight to do the fighting. Stop trying to be dense and not see the difference.

Actually it is you who needs to stop being dense. The issue here is the people who toss around the "chickenhawk" label and tell people who support the war to join up to show their dedication or prove their support or even their reasons. So why don't they hold themselves to the same standard they want others to hold themselves to? If they say we have to be involved to be able to hold an opinion - then shouldn't they too be involved?
It's a pretty simple concept - one that seems to escape the so called "intellectuals".

CsG

Changing subjects quickly aren't we cad?

Nope. Read the OP and you might understand...

CsG

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Tabb

Except they want the protections the military provides this country also. DOH!

The issue here is those that claim people who support the war should go fight it before they can support it. Well, how then can you be against the war without first experiencing it? How do you know it's wrong? because you are smarter? more "enlightened"? No, it's just the same old inconsistency and hypocrisy. Just more hiding behind the old "Don't apply the same standards to me" game they like to play.

CsG

First off the military doesn't do a whole lot of protecting IMO.

Second, it has nothing to do with need to have expirience to be opposed to/infavor of a war. It has to do with those who want the fight to do the fighting. Stop trying to be dense and not see the difference.

Actually it is you who needs to stop being dense. The issue here is the people who toss around the "chickenhawk" label and tell people who support the war to join up to show their dedication or prove their support or even their reasons. So why don't they hold themselves to the same standard they want others to hold themselves to? If they say we have to be involved to be able to hold an opinion - then shouldn't they too be involved?
It's a pretty simple concept - one that seems to escape the so called "intellectuals".

CsG

Changing subjects quickly aren't we cad?

Nope. Read the OP and you might understand...

CsG

It's the quote from the LAST PAGE! You completely evade Mike's comment.... My god...

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Tabb

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Tabb

Except they want the protections the military provides this country also. DOH!

The issue here is those that claim people who support the war should go fight it before they can support it. Well, how then can you be against the war without first experiencing it? How do you know it's wrong? because you are smarter? more "enlightened"? No, it's just the same old inconsistency and hypocrisy. Just more hiding behind the old "Don't apply the same standards to me" game they like to play.

CsG

First off the military doesn't do a whole lot of protecting IMO.

Second, it has nothing to do with need to have expirience to be opposed to/infavor of a war. It has to do with those who want the fight to do the fighting. Stop trying to be dense and not see the difference.

Actually it is you who needs to stop being dense. The issue here is the people who toss around the "chickenhawk" label and tell people who support the war to join up to show their dedication or prove their support or even their reasons. So why don't they hold themselves to the same standard they want others to hold themselves to? If they say we have to be involved to be able to hold an opinion - then shouldn't they too be involved?
It's a pretty simple concept - one that seems to escape the so called "intellectuals".

CsG

Changing subjects quickly aren't we cad?

Nope. Read the OP and you might understand...

CsG

It's the quote from the LAST PAGE! You completely evade Mike's comment.... My god...

Again, if you'd read the OP, you might have a chance at understanding...but you don't seem to want to understand. Oh well, wallow in your ignorance if you wish. Mike missed the boat, and it seem you are missing it too. Go figure...

CsG

 

[Infohawk]

LOL. This is almost as pathetic as attempts to use the term "neolib" (as in "neocon").

But it doens't surprise me people feel the need to lash out when they are pointed out for what they really are: chickenhawks. Sort of like children saying, "ooh yeah... well ... so are you!"

 

[glenn1]

The OP got it backwards by saying his "chickendoves" should join the military to earn their right to criticize war. If you're going to oppose war you should make your bones by putting yourself in harms way for your convictions in a way that actually stands up for them, something along the lines of the "human shields" that went to Iraq before the war. Or maybe join the Peace Corps and go dig up landmines in some hellhole country so some African toddler doesn't have to find them the hard way.

Now I might call you stupid for doing something like this, but you'd have my respect if you did and I definitely wouldn't call you a "chickendove" or whatever the stupid make-believe word the OP used. Having done the military thing before myself I don't see why this makes someone any more or less qualified to talk about matters of war and peace, while it's true that being shot at does serve to clarify the mind nicely (it gets your attention quite quickly), it doesn't turn you into some sort of super-genius either.

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: glenn1
The OP got it backwards by saying his "chickendoves" should join the military to earn their right to criticize war. If you're going to oppose war you should make your bones by putting yourself in harms way for your convictions in a way that actually stands up for them, something along the lines of the "human shields" that went to Iraq before the war. Or maybe join the Peace Corps and go dig up landmines in some hellhole country so some African toddler doesn't have to find them the hard way.

Voting and debating issuses doesn't count?

You don't have to serve in the military to support a war.
You don't have to like your leaders to support the troops.

It's plain and simple.

 

[AndrewR]

By the way, I find the OP absurd. Aside from the fact that "chickendove" is an incredibly lame contrivance, the whole premise is a non sequitur. The issue is not doves criticizing the military. They criticize the Bush administration, who by the very definition of "chickenhawks," never served in the military. It is these chickenhawk who dismiss the expertise of the military. The OP is backwards.

Like that moron Roosevelt -- how in hell can we expect a chair-bound President who never served in the military to lead us in the greatest conflict of the 20th century...

There have always been mistakes in war, made both by the generals and the politicians who command them (unless you want to put the generals in charge, coming from a liberal that's a delicious irony). The difference lately is that the Libs expect perfection because they don't understand the military, its personnel, or its operations and never will because uniforms scare them. I can only imagine the news headlines from D-Day using today's methods -- "Thousands Murdered by FDR on Impenetrable Atlantic Wall!"

 

[Ldir]

Originally posted by: AndrewR

By the way, I find the OP absurd. Aside from the fact that "chickendove" is an incredibly lame contrivance, the whole premise is a non sequitur. The issue is not doves criticizing the military. They criticize the Bush administration, who by the very definition of "chickenhawks," never served in the military. It is these chickenhawk who dismiss the expertise of the military. The OP is backwards.

Like that moron Roosevelt -- how in hell can we expect a chair-bound President who never served in the military to lead us in the greatest conflict of the 20th century...

There have always been mistakes in war, made both by the generals and the politicians who command them (unless you want to put the generals in charge, coming from a liberal that's a delicious irony). The difference lately is that the Libs expect perfection because they don't understand the military, its personnel, or its operations and never will because uniforms scare them. I can only imagine the news headlines from D-Day using today's methods -- "Thousands Murdered by FDR on Impenetrable Atlantic Wall!"

"The Libs expect perfection." What a lovely strawman. Dub's attack was based on lies. His execution was a fiasco. Imperfection is tolerable. Reckless incompetence is not. I do not expect you Bush apologists to see the difference. You see everything Dubya does as perfect.


---------------------------
Bush Apologists of America (BAA): pulling the wool over America's eyes since 1980

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Ldir

Originally posted by: AndrewR

By the way, I find the OP absurd. Aside from the fact that "chickendove" is an incredibly lame contrivance, the whole premise is a non sequitur. The issue is not doves criticizing the military. They criticize the Bush administration, who by the very definition of "chickenhawks," never served in the military. It is these chickenhawk who dismiss the expertise of the military. The OP is backwards.

Like that moron Roosevelt -- how in hell can we expect a chair-bound President who never served in the military to lead us in the greatest conflict of the 20th century...

There have always been mistakes in war, made both by the generals and the politicians who command them (unless you want to put the generals in charge, coming from a liberal that's a delicious irony). The difference lately is that the Libs expect perfection because they don't understand the military, its personnel, or its operations and never will because uniforms scare them. I can only imagine the news headlines from D-Day using today's methods -- "Thousands Murdered by FDR on Impenetrable Atlantic Wall!"

"The Libs expect perfection." What a lovely strawman. Dub's attack was based on lies. His execution was a fiasco. Imperfection is tolerable. Reckless incompetence is not. I do not expect you Bush apologists to see the difference. You see everything Dubya does as perfect.

:roll:

The colon walls surrounding some of the new liberals these days must be absolutely suffocating.

 

[Ldir]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Ldir

Originally posted by: AndrewR

By the way, I find the OP absurd. Aside from the fact that "chickendove" is an incredibly lame contrivance, the whole premise is a non sequitur. The issue is not doves criticizing the military. They criticize the Bush administration, who by the very definition of "chickenhawks," never served in the military. It is these chickenhawk who dismiss the expertise of the military. The OP is backwards.

Like that moron Roosevelt -- how in hell can we expect a chair-bound President who never served in the military to lead us in the greatest conflict of the 20th century...

There have always been mistakes in war, made both by the generals and the politicians who command them (unless you want to put the generals in charge, coming from a liberal that's a delicious irony). The difference lately is that the Libs expect perfection because they don't understand the military, its personnel, or its operations and never will because uniforms scare them. I can only imagine the news headlines from D-Day using today's methods -- "Thousands Murdered by FDR on Impenetrable Atlantic Wall!"

"The Libs expect perfection." What a lovely strawman. Dub's attack was based on lies. His execution was a fiasco. Imperfection is tolerable. Reckless incompetence is not. I do not expect you Bush apologists to see the difference. You see everything Dubya does as perfect.

:roll:

The colon walls surrounding some of the new liberals these days must be absolutely suffocating.

You are not representative of all liberals. Just because you have your head up your ass does not mean we do. I think it is unique to Bush apologist "liberals" like you. Thanks for bleating.


--------------------
Bush Apologists of America (BAA): pulling Bush's colon over their eyes since 1980

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

The colon walls surrounding some of the new liberals these days must be absolutely suffocating.

A sentiment that is echoed in the lower intestinal tract of many Bush apologists whose POV originates there.