****** On further review, this thread could be taken differently than the original intention******* Self - Edit

Machiavelli Wrote:GB would be our resident chaplan

RebKev- Drill Saergant He would try to get us in tip top shape. Can't imagine taking orders from the guy though.

Mach- I would be the guy totin the 50 cal. Is that the Gun Swede had in Heartbreak Ridge? Well whatever he carried that would be me.

reb- Help me out on the standard platoon. I did have one semester of ROTC by the way. Feel free to add.

The Fightin 151st................ Classic Fckin Line!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Feel free to add? Ok. How's this. Learn how to SPELL Sergeant first. Secondly, both you and OU are a couple of armchair generals that don't have the balls to actually "serve" your country. I'm in this **** on a daily basis. Heading to Ft. Wainwright, AK next Friday to meet up with the 172d Infantry.

Both of you idiots are so lost in your hatred of Bush that you don't know what logic is. You gonna show me a general that's opposed to the war? I'll trump that with 10 that do. Oh, and OU, you think you have access to more troops and troops with rank than I? Dream on kid.

Oh, and that's your f'n problem, Mach. You think this **** is a game.

RebelKev Wrote:Feel free to add? Ok. How's this. Learn how to SPELL Sergeant first. Secondly, both you and OU are a couple of armchair generals that don't have the balls to actually "serve" your country. I'm in this **** on a daily basis. Heading to Ft. Wainwright, AK next Friday to meet up with the 172d Infantry.

Whoa whoa whoa... relax tough guy. I don't serve in the military, no. I do have experience with national security issues, from a policy perspective, and so I do deal with these issues on an every-day basis. Its not a matter of "balls".... as my position in this debate does not require me to have any for the sake of hypocrisy. My position is not one of calling other people cowards -- so I fail to see how serving or not serving matters. I'm not asking other people to fight in Iraq for me... I'm asking our politicians not to send them to fight ill-conceived wars.

Its good that you serve in the military. But we do still have civilian control of the military in this country, and it is still a democracy -- meaning that my views on the Iraq war are no less legitimate than yours.

Additionally, as I keep repeating, I assure you that military officers do not universally share your opinions on the wisdom of fighting the Iraq war. Nor do Veterans. You speak for yourself, and yourself alone. There are plenty of people who have fought in this war who will tell you it was a mistake and did not serve American interests. Do not pretend as if you speak for them, or as if your service is somehow more legitimate than their service.

I find it odd that you seem to suggest military service is the only thing that proves somebody has the "balls" to have a reasonable opinion on Iraq, and yet you believe we were right to fight a war that was wholly designed by people who have never lifted a rifle except to shoot quail. Cheney, Feith, Wolfowitz, Perle, Gaffney, Elliot Cohen, Libby, etc. You seem to have no problem taking these civilians arguments about the war at face value.

Quote:Both of you idiots are so lost in your hatred of Bush that you don't know what logic is. You gonna show me a general that's opposed to the war? I'll trump that with 10 that do. Oh, and OU, you think you have access to more troops and troops with rank than I? Dream on kid.

First of all, I don't hate Bush. That's very dismissive of you to say that, but its wrong. I simply disagree with the path we're on -- my right as an American, and my duty as an American that is literate and in touch with reality. Most of the intellectuals who were the architects of this war and early backers of it now recognize its failure. Perle in particular, Adelman -- Elliot Cohen and Francis Fukuyama I have heard disavow it myself. This is because the reality on the ground simply can not be denied. Baker makes the case clear. We are failing in Iraq.

I suspect that a certain amount of your hostility to accepting that notion comes from your personal connection to the military and a feeling that it embodies a criticism of the troops or their capabilities to achieve objectives. Thats understandable, but nothing could be further from the truth -- it is our policy that is failing the troops, and not putting them in a position to succeed. At some point, despite our wish to think that our troops can simply keep plugging away and get the job done, we need to recognize reality, that is -- "the job" itself has drastically changed over the past four years. Current policy in Iraq is aimed more at preventing a civil war that engulfs the entire region, more than anything that resembles the objective we had envisioned when our troops first set out for Kuwait.

There is no doubt that the active duty generals still support the war effort. Its an apolitical position. You fight the wars you are given to fight, and you dedicate the full-measure of your capability to seeing them through. Nothing less should be expected. And yet if you talk to retired officers, particularly those whose careers and legacies are not tied to this war in anyway, you get a different picture.

The questions circling around the policy community in DC, including and particularly those with military service, no longer center around whether the Iraq war was a good idea or not. It has empirically been proven as a mistake. The questions that are now being debated are whether or not there is anything left to salvage, and how do we exit in a way that leaves the maximum amount of stability.

As far as who knows more troops or officers -- this is a juvenile debate. There is no way to settle it one way or the other. I would simply suggest that I'm not talking out of my ass on these matters.

If you want to have a debate with me on Iraq, straight up on the issues, I'm happy to do so at any time, on any thread. But if its just going to be a pissing contest along the lines of "I have been there, so I know and you are full of it and only buying the media's lies"... then save yourself the time, I'm not interested. Bluster and rhetoric are non-falsifiable, I'd be wasting my time.

OUGwave Wrote:Its good that you serve in the military. But we do still have civilian control of the military in this country, and it is still a democracy -- meaning that my views on the Iraq war are no less legitimate than yours.

And yet in another thread you gave us this gem that mach went orgasmic over in this one.

Quote:If you are so anxious to go defend the cause of freedom in Iraq, get over there and hump a rifle around Sadr City and start kicking doors in. Your current unit, the 151st Fighting Keyboardists, will carry on fine without you, I'm sure.

And then in this thread, not a few paragraphs after your statement, very accurate I might add, that one need not have served in the military to have a legitimate view on it we get

Quote:I find it odd that you seem to suggest military service is the only thing that proves somebody has the "balls" to have a reasonable opinion on Iraq, and yet you believe we were right to fight a war that was wholly designed by people who have never lifted a rifle except to shoot quail. Cheney, Feith, Wolfowitz, Perle, Gaffney, Elliot Cohen, Libby, etc. You seem to have no problem taking these civilians arguments about the war at face value.

You're looking to have it both ways. That if you support the war the only way that view is legitimate is if you go sign up right now and deploy on out to Iraq. It's a convenient place to put yourself in for the debate. If one disagrees with you, then their view is only legitimate if they go sign up. If they think as you do, well it's legitmate without any action required whatsover.

In one breath you criticize kev for bringing in military service yet in another thread you offer it up as a requirement for legitamacy from those who support the war. Also let me be clear I don't fault you for doing it. It's a very effective, and emotional argument to make. "You weren't there so you can't know!!!", or "You have no idea what it was like, you've never seen it!!" and the like. My teenage cousins use the tact routinely with their mother when she's trying to guide them.

BTW FDR never served in the army, did that make his views on WWII any less legitmate?

I've never been dead, doesn't mean I can't write an obituary.

Quote:You're looking to have it both ways. That if you support the war the only way that view is legitimate is if you go sign up right now and deploy on out to Iraq. It's a convenient place to put yourself in for the debate. If one disagrees with you, then their view is only legitimate if they go sign up. If they think as you do, well it's legitmate without any action required whatsover.

No................. he's showing the hypocrisy of the neocon chickenhawks.

Quote:Feel free to add? Ok. How's this. Learn how to SPELL Sergeant first. Secondly, both you and OU are a couple of armchair generals that don't have the balls to actually "serve" your country. I'm in this **** on a daily basis. Heading to Ft. Wainwright, AK next Friday to meet up with the 172d Infantry.

Both of you idiots are so lost in your hatred of Bush that you don't know what logic is. You gonna show me a general that's opposed to the war? I'll trump that with 10 that do. Oh, and OU, you think you have access to more troops and troops with rank than I? Dream on kid.

I personally don't hate Bush. I wish he would of picked another guy to vet his v.p. "I've scoured the country long and hard kid............... I've found a good one...................................... ME!!!"

Ninerfan1 Wrote:

OUGwave Wrote:Its good that you serve in the military. But we do still have civilian control of the military in this country, and it is still a democracy -- meaning that my views on the Iraq war are no less legitimate than yours.

And yet in another thread you gave us this gem that mach went orgasmic over in this one.

Quote:If you are so anxious to go defend the cause of freedom in Iraq, get over there and hump a rifle around Sadr City and start kicking doors in. Your current unit, the 151st Fighting Keyboardists, will carry on fine without you, I'm sure.

And then in this thread, not a few paragraphs after your statement, very accurate I might add, that one need not have served in the military to have a legitimate view on it we get

Quote:I find it odd that you seem to suggest military service is the only thing that proves somebody has the "balls" to have a reasonable opinion on Iraq, and yet you believe we were right to fight a war that was wholly designed by people who have never lifted a rifle except to shoot quail. Cheney, Feith, Wolfowitz, Perle, Gaffney, Elliot Cohen, Libby, etc. You seem to have no problem taking these civilians arguments about the war at face value.

You're looking to have it both ways. That if you support the war the only way that view is legitimate is if you go sign up right now and deploy on out to Iraq. It's a convenient place to put yourself in for the debate. If one disagrees with you, then their view is only legitimate if they go sign up. If they think as you do, well it's legitmate without any action required whatsover.

In one breath you criticize kev for bringing in military service yet in another thread you offer it up as a requirement for legitamacy from those who support the war. Also let me be clear I don't fault you for doing it. It's a very effective, and emotional argument to make. "You weren't there so you can't know!!!", or "You have no idea what it was like, you've never seen it!!" and the like. My teenage cousins use the tact routinely with their mother when she's trying to guide them.

BTW FDR never served in the army, did that make his views on WWII any less legitmate?

I've never been dead, doesn't mean I can't write an obituary.

There's no hypocrisy on my part, its a simple argument. You don't have to be in the military to have credibility in discussing Iraq, and not everyone who disagrees with the war is a pacifist hippy who didn't serve. There is no contradiction there.

This is not a complicated or a hypocritical argument, its just a multi-faceted one.

You can support a war effort without fighting in the war -- to say otherwise would be stupid. But there is a HUGE difference between supporting the war and what is going on here in this debate. You cannot, in a war of choice that we are losing, call other people cowards and say they are pro-surrender and want to embolden the enemy unless you yourself have served. Well, you could... you just can't do it with any credibility. There is a big difference between supporting a war, and calling those who do not unpatriotic and cowardly and pro-defeat... THAT is what I am taking issue with.

OUGwave Wrote:There's no hypocrisy on my part, its a simple argument. You don't have to be in the military to have credibility in discussing Iraq, and not everyone who disagrees with the war is a pacifist hippy who didn't serve. There is no contradiction there.

That is a simple argument, however that's not what you said OU. I'll repost it.

Quote:If you are so anxious to go defend the cause of freedom in Iraq, get over there and hump a rifle around Sadr City and start kicking doors in. Your current unit, the 151st Fighting Keyboardists, will carry on fine without you, I'm sure.

I went back and read what you were responding to with that comment and it's not exactly evident to anyone what a "nuanced" point you were attempting to make. In fact the term hippy or pacifist don't appear in the post, nor are they implied.

Then in your post above you pointed, rightly, that the military is under civilian authority in this country and one need not have served to have a legitimate opinion. Then a few paragraphs later take kev to task that he believes and follows a civilian authority that never served.

Add to that this comment:

Quote:I don't think it applies to everyone -- Obviously RebelKev actually has served, so thats fair enough. But there are a lot of chicken-hawks out there. And I think its fair to mock people who continue to demand that OTHER people sacrifice so they can talk tough about "not surrendering".

No mention of hippy or unpatriotic there either. But it's very clear that it's free game to mock someone who's never served because they feel that quitting in Iraq will do more harm to this country in the long run than staying does in the short run. That too is a legitimate point of view OU, and one need not have served to make it, primarily because many who have served make it as well.

I will take your word that you didn't mean how it came across. However if you take one step back and objectively look at how you stated your point I believe you would see why the conclusion I drew wasn't exactly a stretch.

Machiavelli Wrote:No................. he's showing the hypocrisy of the neocon chickenhawks.

How? I'll just look over that anti-semitic "neocon" label, but I am an administrator of a board chock full of people that support the war. We are also partnered with 4 other organizations, also chock full of supporters of the GWOT.

You say "chickenhawk", yet when someone points you in the general direction of people who ARE acting, who ARE serving, and ALSO support the war, you dismiss them?

Get over yourself. You know the site. Go call them all chickenhawks. Tell SFC Frank Antenori, (USA-Retired) and a former 18D SF Medic he's a chickenhawk. Go tell LTC Steve Russell, (USA-Retired), co-founder of Veterans for Victory and a man crucial to the capture of Saddam Hussein, he's a chickenhawk. Go tell Goldenwings, (USMC-Retired Master Gunnery Sergeant), and former Marine Corp Recon NCO, he's a chickenhawk.

Shall I go on? I've already been called a "chickenhawk" by you and have already filed that in an appropriate area. {flush}

OUGwave Wrote:This is not a complicated...argument, its just a multi-faceted one.

You have to remember who you are dealing with here. For many on this board, simply adding 1 and 1 is a tough chore. ;-)

RebelKev Wrote:

Machiavelli Wrote:No................. he's showing the hypocrisy of the neocon chickenhawks.

How? I'll just look over that anti-semitic "neocon" label, but I am an administrator of a board chock full of people that support the war. We are also partnered with 4 other organizations, also chock full of supporters of the GWOT.

You say "chickenhawk", yet when someone points you in the general direction of people who ARE acting, who ARE serving, and ALSO support the war, you dismiss them?

Get over yourself. You know the site. Go call them all chickenhawks. Tell SFC Frank Antenori, (USA-Retired) and a former 18D SF Medic he's a chickenhawk. Go tell LTC Steve Russell, (USA-Retired), co-founder of Veterans for Victory and a man crucial to the capture of Saddam Hussein, he's a chickenhawk. Go tell Goldenwings, (USMC-Retired Master Gunnery Sergeant), and former Marine Corp Recon NCO, he's a chickenhawk.

Shall I go on? I've already been called a "chickenhawk" by you and have already filed that in an appropriate area. {flush}

There is nothing anti-semetic about it. If you are trying to say all Neo-Cons are Jewish you are insane. Many are but many aren't. This is just another attempt to keep people from questioning their "reasoning" which is very flawed.

chickenhawk numero uno...................... Cheney


How many deferments did he have when he was called to serve...................................


nine was it?????????????????????

Ninerfan1 Wrote:

OUGwave Wrote:There's no hypocrisy on my part, its a simple argument. You don't have to be in the military to have credibility in discussing Iraq, and not everyone who disagrees with the war is a pacifist hippy who didn't serve. There is no contradiction there.

That is a simple argument, however that's not what you said OU. I'll repost it.

Quote:If you are so anxious to go defend the cause of freedom in Iraq, get over there and hump a rifle around Sadr City and start kicking doors in. Your current unit, the 151st Fighting Keyboardists, will carry on fine without you, I'm sure.

I went back and read what you were responding to with that comment and it's not exactly evident to anyone what a "nuanced" point you were attempting to make. In fact the term hippy or pacifist don't appear in the post, nor are they implied.

Then in your post above you pointed, rightly, that the military is under civilian authority in this country and one need not have served to have a legitimate opinion. Then a few paragraphs later take kev to task that he believes and follows a civilian authority that never served.

Add to that this comment:

Quote:I don't think it applies to everyone -- Obviously RebelKev actually has served, so thats fair enough. But there are a lot of chicken-hawks out there. And I think its fair to mock people who continue to demand that OTHER people sacrifice so they can talk tough about "not surrendering".

No mention of hippy or unpatriotic there either. But it's very clear that it's free game to mock someone who's never served because they feel that quitting in Iraq will do more harm to this country in the long run than staying does in the short run. That too is a legitimate point of view OU, and one need not have served to make it, primarily because many who have served make it as well.

I will take your word that you didn't mean how it came across. However if you take one step back and objectively look at how you stated your point I believe you would see why the conclusion I drew wasn't exactly a stretch.

You are taking it out of the context of the argument.

Machiavelli Wrote:chickenhawk numero uno...................... Cheney


How many deferments did he have when he was called to serve...................................


nine was it?????????????????????

....and Clinton dodged the draft. How many conflicts did he get us into? Bosnia-Herzegovina? Kosovo? Not to mention how he pussed out and made us all out to be pansies with Somalia.

Another thing, if he'd have handled issues with terrorism while he was IN office, rather than treating it as a f'n law enforcement issue, we probably wouldn't be in this **** to begin with. How many times were we attacked by terrorists in the 90's, Dogger? How many times did we "actually" react? As for Iraq, they broke the damn treaty when they started firing on our pilots. We should have taken them out in the '90's......and Clinton, as well as every other f'n Democrat still in office, are on record as saying so.

Why the change now? POLITICS. ....and you Dems are using our troops as the GDamn pawns. This is a needed war.

Quote:You are taking it out of the context of the argument.

That's S tandard Operating Procedure for Baghdad Bob.

see Scooter morphed into Armitage

Machiavelli Wrote:

Quote:You are taking it out of the context of the argument.

That's S tandard Operating Procedure for Baghdad Bob.

see Scooter morphed into Armitage

What's funny is I never did that. But your inability to grasp basic logic and succession of points and thought Dogger makes you think that's what happened.

Quite funny actually. BTW Black Knight, I asked you a question in the Libby thread. I'll go ahead and warn you that, as always, I plan to use facts and basic reasoning skills in the point I'm going to make to you. So be sure to take some Advil before answering. I know how they give you headaches.

OU,

As I said I take you at your word about what you really meant. But regardless, that's not what you said. And I don't believe I took it out of context at all.

But agree to disagree.

Ninerfan1 Wrote:

Machiavelli Wrote:

Quote:You are taking it out of the context of the argument.

That's S tandard Operating Procedure for Baghdad Bob.

see Scooter morphed into Armitage

What's funny is I never did that. But your inability to grasp basic logic and succession of points and thought Dogger makes you think that's what happened.

Quite funny actually. BTW Black Knight, I asked you a question in the Libby thread. I'll go ahead and warn you that, as always, I plan to use facts and basic reasoning skills in the point I'm going to make to you. So be sure to take some Advil before answering. I know how they give you headaches.

OU,

As I said I take you at your word about what you really meant. But regardless, that's not what you said. And I don't believe I took it out of context at all.

But agree to disagree.

No, not agree to disagree. You took the quote out of context.

Here is the quote I was responding to when I made that statement:

Quote:"Experience proves that the man who obstructs a war in which his nation is engaged, no matter whether right or wrong, occupies no enviable place in life or history. Better for him, individually, to advocate 'war, pestilence, and famine' than to act as obstructionist to a war already begun.... The most favorable posthumous history the stay-at-home traitor can hope for is -- oblivion."

That is what I was responding to, and COMPLETELY fits with what I said above in this thread. If you start calling people traitors for disagreeing with the war, and implying they are cowards, YOU YOURSELF better be putting something on the line -- it is VERY easy to call people traitors when other people are the ones making the sacrifices for you.

I stand by what I said -- both in that thread and here above -- there is no contradiction, and yes, you took it out of context.

** note that I haven't called everyone a chickenhawk, even those who are supporting the war and doing it in a classy way, such as yourself. One can have honest disagreements about policy, and military service should never be a criteria for that -- as people on both sides of the debate have served, and because we have civilian control over the military. But when people start mentioning cowardice and using the word traitor, then those people better make sure their words are backed up.

OUGwave Wrote:

Ninerfan1 Wrote:

Machiavelli Wrote:

Quote:You are taking it out of the context of the argument.

That's S tandard Operating Procedure for Baghdad Bob.

see Scooter morphed into Armitage

What's funny is I never did that. But your inability to grasp basic logic and succession of points and thought Dogger makes you think that's what happened.

Quite funny actually. BTW Black Knight, I asked you a question in the Libby thread. I'll go ahead and warn you that, as always, I plan to use facts and basic reasoning skills in the point I'm going to make to you. So be sure to take some Advil before answering. I know how they give you headaches.

OU,

As I said I take you at your word about what you really meant. But regardless, that's not what you said. And I don't believe I took it out of context at all.

But agree to disagree.

No, not agree to disagree. You took the quote out of context.

Here is the quote I was responding to when I made that statement:

Quote:"Experience proves that the man who obstructs a war in which his nation is engaged, no matter whether right or wrong, occupies no enviable place in life or history. Better for him, individually, to advocate 'war, pestilence, and famine' than to act as obstructionist to a war already begun.... The most favorable posthumous history the stay-at-home traitor can hope for is -- oblivion."

That is what I was responding to, and COMPLETELY fits with what I said above in this thread. If you start calling people traitors for disagreeing with the war, and implying they are cowards, YOU YOURSELF better be putting something on the line -- it is VERY easy to call people traitors when other people are the ones making the sacrifices for you.

I stand by what I said -- both in that thread and here above -- there is no contradiction, and yes, you took it out of context.

My mistake. I was looking at what the poster said in the thread, not the quote from Grant.

Apologies.

It's cool, just making it clear.