An Example for You Chickenhawks - Page 8

Matty · #71 05-20-2005, 01:31 AM

[ QUOTE ]
One point amongst several deserves to be attacked, if that point is fallacious or wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]No, because I never claimed calling you all chickenhawks had anything to do with a shortage. You're just making [censored] up to tear down.
[ QUOTE ]
And I'm still waiting for you to join your local firefighter's union, or to go work full-time helping with the homeless problem in this country.

[/ QUOTE ]Are you not reading my posts? There is no firefighter shortage. It is not a problem. Your homeless [censored] is misguided too, because you don't know me, but I'm not going to say anything more on the matter because with what I have to tell you combined with what I've said before on these boards, you could figure out who I am in real life, and I don't trust ignorant shits like you.

Suffice it to say I do more for my country than you ever will.

ACPlayer · #72 05-20-2005, 01:34 AM

It is dead on point. Do you see why?

Is the war on terror a defensive action or is it offensive?

MMMMMM · #73 05-20-2005, 10:11 AM

Grey, the point is that you cannot rightly accuse so broad a swathe of people of cowardice or hypocrisy in this instance.

MMMMMM · #74 05-20-2005, 10:14 AM

No it is not on point, because we are not debating in this thread about whether the Iraq War was or was not justified in the larger context of the war on terror. Rather the discussion of the justifications of the war (in this thread) have centered around the humanitarian aspect.

ACPlayer · #75 05-20-2005, 02:06 PM

Wrong again. How often can you be so wrong?

The point of the thred is not about humanitarian aspect but about the need for soldiers and your and other "chickenhawks" preference to spend time playing cards rather than helping with the fight you believe so passionately in.

You point out that you may help if there was an invasion. I ask is this war in response to an aggression or was this our going on the offensive?

If this is in reponse to outside aggression, you should be willing to drop your mouse and get cracking to defend against a scourge your propogandists are telling you will try to overrun America. If it is not in response to outside aggression -- feel free to state that.

twowords · #76 05-20-2005, 07:40 PM

[ QUOTE ]

The point of the thred is not about humanitarian aspect but about the need for soldiers and your and other "chickenhawks" preference to spend time playing cards rather than helping with the fight you believe so passionately in.
If it is not in response to outside aggression -- feel free to state that.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think he believes the war is being fought for humanitarian reasons to help the people of Iraq and therefore not an offensive or defensive war (clearly not how the war was sold by W). Hence your theory of "if its not defensive, then its offensive" was (a) non-sequitur.

However, if Americans believe in this war for that reason then we've got plenty of other places to fight, plenty of people to try to save, at great cost to ourselves and our relations with the world community (while encouraging terrorism). I find it hard to imagine supporting a radical foreign policy like this, which would put so many of our troops in so many wars, and not being willing to fight it myself if I could when the need was dire.

ACPlayer · #77 05-20-2005, 10:36 PM

Well he could (and probably should) go to Afghanistan and hunt bin ladin. Assuming you are correct in your reasoning.

Usually, 6M uses this tactic when he does not want to answer a question because it makes him look foolish.

I think the term chickenhawk is appropriate.

MMMMMM · #78 05-20-2005, 10:47 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Well he could (and probably should) go to Afghanistan and hunt bin ladin. Assuming you are correct in your reasoning.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have more pressing matters to attend to, ACPlayer--and there are people better suited to that pursuit than I.

vulturesrow · #79 05-20-2005, 11:35 PM

I cant believe people are still trying to stick to this line of debate. Supporting the war doesnt obligate you to go join up at the first opportunity. Reduce this argument to its premises and it becomes obvious what a dumb argument it is.

ACPlayer · #80 05-20-2005, 11:42 PM

No one is obligated to join at the first oppty.

I picked on 6M's point about being whether it would be worth joining if we were being invaded.

It is also worth exploring just how far a person supports the causes they espouse. There is a lot of fire against the dangers to America from the Muslim world -- when is this fire big enough for real individual action action.