Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.emersons.net/mt/mt-pingback.cgi/950
Comments
VDH can easily say in a sentence what the rest of us struggle to write in a long winded paragraph.
Posted by: Billy Budd at June 17, 2005 05:44 PM
Perhaps it is lost when gung-ho right-wingers are more interested in "blogging" than "enlisting"?
Posted by: D. Bellino at June 21, 2005 12:33 AM
Ah yes, the old "chickenhawk" slur.
1) I'm a veteran, as any casual reader of my site can easily figure out, and would still be in uniform if an injury hadn't ended my career.
2) Would you *really* prefer it if only veterans and soldiers were allowed to have opinions on the matter? Because we can go that way if you really want to.
Maybe we should allow only doctors to have input on healthcare policy, or only cops to have input on law enforcement.
I'm betting you wouldn't like that.
Posted by: Russ at June 21, 2005 12:37 AM
Dear Russ,
My goodness you are defensive. Please read the one sentence post again. While it is certainly directed at you personally (no point in not being direct here), it is also "generic"; i.e. please explain to me where the millions of your "fellow right-wing white guy" Bush voters/Iraq war supporters are...now that their country needs them (and needs them precisely because of their political views and voting behavior? (they do not seem to be, unless I am mistaken, "enlisting in droves".
As for the "chicken hawk" argument getting "old", it is getting old, again, precisely because you and your fellow right wingers are only too happy to encourage death and destruction, so long as it is someone else who does the dying. Is there anything so awe inspiring as the "courage of the non-combatant"?
You are a veteran...so what? You claim to have a terrible boo-boo that prevents you from serving in the military? I have read recently of American soldiers who, having had limbs blown off, are returning to combat duty with prosthetic limbs. Is your injury worse than this? And even if it is...again I say...what about the "right wing millions"? Where are they? All nursing upper-class tennis elbow?
As for freedom of speech, your defensive reaction says more than I can. Of course I think you have a right to your "very strange" opinion. And I, in turn, have a right to mine. The difference, of course, is that I don't support "that which I am not willing to do myself". i.e. get my head blown off for...what, exactly?
The war is lost; it was lost before it started.
You might want to read, or reread, Halberstam's book about Vietnam. Or Will Durant's observations about "Muslim warriors" (in his "Story of Civilization".)
I anxiously await your response...so long as it addresses my questions, that is.
Posted by: D. Bellino at June 21, 2005 09:30 AM
Way to engage in strawmen and insults on a veteran's blog to keep bringing up an old argument, Bellino.
Apparently you're engaging in a debate with someone you don't know very well, so you cop back to the old "if you support this war, why aren't you enlisted?" angle. R. happens to be above the maximum age requirement for enlisting. Also, his health concerns would automatically disqualify him from being accepted. (And if you're curious enough about what those concerns are, maybe you should read the blog a bit more carefully before asking.)
As for the "chicken hawk" argument getting "old", it is getting old, again, precisely because you and your fellow right wingers are only too happy to encourage death and destruction, so long as it is someone else who does the dying. Is there anything so awe inspiring as the "courage of the non-combatant"?
That made no sense. It's old because it's a logical fallacy to assume one thing about those who support the war and then jump to a fallible conclusion about the next action they must take. Is that the only reasonable conclusion you can come to?
It doesn't help that you completely missed Russ's third point, which I'll restate again for your benefit:
Would you *really* prefer it if only veterans and soldiers were allowed to have opinions on the matter? Because we can go that way if you really want to. Maybe we should allow only doctors to have input on healthcare policy, or only cops to have input on law enforcement.
In the same vein, we should only allow health experts to have input on what you eat, or only lawyers and politicians to have input on creating laws, or only teachers to have input on education. That's what you're saying, right? Maybe we can take that a step further and say that everybody who opposed the war should've gone to Iraq to be Saddam's human shields. I bet you wouldn't like THAT.
The difference, of course, is that I don't support "that which I am not willing to do myself". i.e. get my head blown off for...what, exactly?
How about trying to read blogs of Iraqis who say they're glad the Americans freed them from an insane despot and mass murderer? How about trying the blogs of soldiers currently in Iraq who report the good things the press declines to publish?
The war is lost; it was lost before it started.
Try relocating from the doom-and-gloom mindset you're in and maybe, I don't know, balance it with a little good news from Arthur Chrenkoff. We're making more progress there than you realize. Or are we pro-war folks so anathema to you that you won't read the good news that anti-war folks in general refuse to believe?
Posted by: RheGirl at June 21, 2005 06:12 PM
Don’t be concerned about the likes of Bellino. Having no discernable reason for self respect, his ilk simply disrespect those who do have reason. When immature folks are merely handed the freedom to say anything, they often do.
Posted by: Stephen at June 21, 2005 07:46 PM
Imperial Department of Hegemony By Force
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.emersons.net/mt/mt-pingback.cgi/950
Comments
VDH can easily say in a sentence what the rest of us struggle to write in a long winded paragraph.
Posted by: Billy Budd at June 17, 2005 05:44 PM
Perhaps it is lost when gung-ho right-wingers are more interested in "blogging" than "enlisting"?
Posted by: D. Bellino at June 21, 2005 12:33 AM
Ah yes, the old "chickenhawk" slur.
1) I'm a veteran, as any casual reader of my site can easily figure out, and would still be in uniform if an injury hadn't ended my career.
2) Would you *really* prefer it if only veterans and soldiers were allowed to have opinions on the matter? Because we can go that way if you really want to.
Maybe we should allow only doctors to have input on healthcare policy, or only cops to have input on law enforcement.
I'm betting you wouldn't like that.
Posted by: Russ at June 21, 2005 12:37 AM
Dear Russ,
My goodness you are defensive. Please read the one sentence post again. While it is certainly directed at you personally (no point in not being direct here), it is also "generic"; i.e. please explain to me where the millions of your "fellow right-wing white guy" Bush voters/Iraq war supporters are...now that their country needs them (and needs them precisely because of their political views and voting behavior? (they do not seem to be, unless I am mistaken, "enlisting in droves".
As for the "chicken hawk" argument getting "old", it is getting old, again, precisely because you and your fellow right wingers are only too happy to encourage death and destruction, so long as it is someone else who does the dying. Is there anything so awe inspiring as the "courage of the non-combatant"?
You are a veteran...so what? You claim to have a terrible boo-boo that prevents you from serving in the military? I have read recently of American soldiers who, having had limbs blown off, are returning to combat duty with prosthetic limbs. Is your injury worse than this? And even if it is...again I say...what about the "right wing millions"? Where are they? All nursing upper-class tennis elbow?
As for freedom of speech, your defensive reaction says more than I can. Of course I think you have a right to your "very strange" opinion. And I, in turn, have a right to mine. The difference, of course, is that I don't support "that which I am not willing to do myself". i.e. get my head blown off for...what, exactly?
The war is lost; it was lost before it started.
You might want to read, or reread, Halberstam's book about Vietnam. Or Will Durant's observations about "Muslim warriors" (in his "Story of Civilization".)
I anxiously await your response...so long as it addresses my questions, that is.
Posted by: D. Bellino at June 21, 2005 09:30 AM
Way to engage in strawmen and insults on a veteran's blog to keep bringing up an old argument, Bellino.
Apparently you're engaging in a debate with someone you don't know very well, so you cop back to the old "if you support this war, why aren't you enlisted?" angle. R. happens to be above the maximum age requirement for enlisting. Also, his health concerns would automatically disqualify him from being accepted. (And if you're curious enough about what those concerns are, maybe you should read the blog a bit more carefully before asking.)
As for the "chicken hawk" argument getting "old", it is getting old, again, precisely because you and your fellow right wingers are only too happy to encourage death and destruction, so long as it is someone else who does the dying. Is there anything so awe inspiring as the "courage of the non-combatant"?
That made no sense. It's old because it's a logical fallacy to assume one thing about those who support the war and then jump to a fallible conclusion about the next action they must take. Is that the only reasonable conclusion you can come to?
It doesn't help that you completely missed Russ's third point, which I'll restate again for your benefit:
Would you *really* prefer it if only veterans and soldiers were allowed to have opinions on the matter? Because we can go that way if you really want to. Maybe we should allow only doctors to have input on healthcare policy, or only cops to have input on law enforcement.
In the same vein, we should only allow health experts to have input on what you eat, or only lawyers and politicians to have input on creating laws, or only teachers to have input on education. That's what you're saying, right? Maybe we can take that a step further and say that everybody who opposed the war should've gone to Iraq to be Saddam's human shields. I bet you wouldn't like THAT.
The difference, of course, is that I don't support "that which I am not willing to do myself". i.e. get my head blown off for...what, exactly?
How about trying to read blogs of Iraqis who say they're glad the Americans freed them from an insane despot and mass murderer? How about trying the blogs of soldiers currently in Iraq who report the good things the press declines to publish?
The war is lost; it was lost before it started.
Try relocating from the doom-and-gloom mindset you're in and maybe, I don't know, balance it with a little good news from Arthur Chrenkoff. We're making more progress there than you realize. Or are we pro-war folks so anathema to you that you won't read the good news that anti-war folks in general refuse to believe?
Posted by: RheGirl![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.emersons.net/nav-commenters.gif)
at June 21, 2005 06:12 PM
Don’t be concerned about the likes of Bellino. Having no discernable reason for self respect, his ilk simply disrespect those who do have reason. When immature folks are merely handed the freedom to say anything, they often do.
Posted by: Stephen at June 21, 2005 07:46 PM