Good stuff, DD. I completely agree with your point above about "educated people" and where they lean, by the way. If you restrict education to Ph.D's in the humanities, then, yes, you've got a fairly left-leaning crowd. But outside of that, I think all bets are off. You should hear some of my colleagues who teach in the Business School here. Bottom-line, be hungover more often so we can agree on things more often.
I can argue better than you don't have the nuts to back up your own priniciples with action? Yeah, but I'm talking to YOU. If I were a young man like you and felt as strongly as you do, there is no way I'd be sitting back here typing on my computer about war. I'd be there. You should, too. And I'm not being facetious. I really, truly believe that guys like you need to go. There is a world of education you can receive. I don't want you to be another Republican armchair general in 20 years, and the best way to do that is to get you into the fight now. Almost ALL the current hawks were chickenhawks, to a man. They couldn't find one testicle among them when we were at war and they were service age. Don't be like that. If you believe, then join, and go fight. Any chicken hawk can sit here and argue that this is a just war, a needed war. Go fight it and see if you feel the same way after a year. You might be the next John Kerry, but don't be the next Dubya. He's a fraud and a coward.
The old John Heath would get nasty and insult you at this point, but this is the new, improved John Heath. I am too old for military service, although I did try to join the National guard last Spring. They rejected me because of my age. You see, you should try to find a better argument than personally attacking me. Good luck.
I see why didn't you serve when you were military age? I'll try to remember you're the new johnheath. btw, I don't see how it's insulting to ask a man who espouses your beliefs why he isn't serving. you will admit, won't you, that most Republican hawks have not been in the military?
That is a silly argument. It is akin to saying that I shouldn't call the Police Department to foil an armed robbery unless I am willing to confront the gun wielding criminal myself. Most people born after 1955 didn't serve in the military. Most people who went to college, who are the same people who might advance up the political ladder, didn't serve in the military either. There is a time and place to use force- you will admit that. The reason to use force is either correct or incorrect, and the background of the person advancing the argument for military force is irrelevant. You are only advancing this illogical argument to avoid dealing with your incorrect statement in which you claimed that the spread of Democracy has had no effect on man's propensity to go to war.
Thanks for giving your excuse on why you are too special to be in the military. I never made the argument to which you allude. I never claimed that "the spread of democracy has had no effect on man's propensity to go to war." In case you haven't noticed, we are a democracy, and we've been in more military actions than any other country the last 50 years. Being a democracy has not slowed us down, and it hasn't slowed down Britain, either. Wake up and smell napalm, buddy. We are an extremely warring nation, and always have been. As for your police analogy, that one is really deficient. Why don't you just admit you don't have the huevos to serve, like all your heroes? Speaking of which, you missed Grenada, Beirut, Panama, Iraq, Kosovo, Afghanistan, and Iraq again. Kind of sad when a guy believes so strongly in war and this country's pursuit of it, but won't go himself. Yeah, let those lower class guys fight. We have to save Rush, and Dubya, and Cheney, and Newt, and all the other chickenhawks for future roles in leadership.
LOL, using your logic, a 45 year old man who didn't serve in the military would have had no business supporting our efforts against the Nazis in WW2. You are embarrassing yourself. I actually cringed when I read your last post.
I'm getting in on this kinda late, but... I told you so. About what these poll #s show, that is. The media representation we've been seeing coming from Iraq is inacurate, to say the least, and grossly distorting in my view. Surprise, surprise - bad news makes the news, good news gets ignored. And with election year already spinning up, and the nation's major media houses controlled by liberals... But whatever. No one ever listens. Point made.
In my last message to you in this thread, I have to say that I am astonished by your illogical arguments. You seem like a bright guy, and you have reduced yourself to completely ignoring the topic at hand, and calling me cowardly for not serving in this war despite my disqualifying advanced age, or serving in wars serviced by our volunteer armed forces. First, you claimed I was young, only to find I am nearing middle age. Then, you claimed I was gutless, then you learned I tried to volunteer in the Spring. More importantly, you refuse recognize that for the first time in the history of man, we have found a form of government that does not EVER wage war upon itself- Democracy. You have been wrong consistently, and you should exit this exchange gracefully, and quietly, in my opinion.
I thought you were 20 years old because you think and write like someone who doesn't know very much about the world. As for your other comments, I don't respect your opinion, so why should I care what you think of me? The board has several decent conservative voices, but you're not one of them. But if you ever want to know what it's really like, ask me. Unlike all your conservative heroes, I wasn't AWOL or hiding out. That's gotta really get under the skin of a guy like you, knowing that guys like me, and Kerry, and Gore served while Dubya was AWOL from the National Guard. Tell me, did you like the way Bush attacked the only War hero in the Republican party three years ago? Or the way his boys went after Max Cleland? We are talking about this topic because we are talking about being at war. For most, connecting the dots from individual attitudes to individual commitments is not such a great leap. I'm sure you'll see it if you read the thread again. It's not that difficult to see how we got to this discussion, but I can understand why you would like to put a cap on it.
When pissing matches get personal, it's pointless to keep pissing. At least when Macbeth and I (just an example) do it, we try to stay remotely on topic. Not that it doesn't get personal... But exactly what does jonheath's service or lack thereof have to do with this discussion? You don't have to have served to claim patriotism. Or whatever. Stay on topic so one of you can destroy the other with logical arguments, and then the loser can slink away to fight another day. That's how the board works, and every side gets a buttkicking every now and then. No shame in it, that's just how it seems to work. At least give the winner the momentary delusion that he has actually succeeded. What can it hurt?
read the thread, treeman this discussion is no more a nonsequitor than any other part of the past two pages. you guys just squeal every time someone calls you on something. I appreciate the fact that you are serving, but go to the war and then tell me how I should view it. I really don't need a lesson from guys who have never been outside the US for duty, and if you ever serve in Afghanistan or Iraq, you may not be such a chest beating conservative.
All of the guys I have talked to who have been there done that - guys getting back from Iraq and Afghan - have come away from the experience beating their chests even harder, friendly fan. If anything, they are bewildered as to why what seems like half of the American population is not behind what they're doing, which tends to make them even more conservative - and bitter. If that tells you anything. I am about 95% confident that at some point within the next five years I will get a deployment to at least one of those areas, quite probably both. Everyone will, at least to Iraq; operational tempos and availability cycles demand it (the Army is too small to avoid it). And my MOS (13F - Fire Support Specialist / Forward Observer) is about the most deployable one the Army has, short of Special Forces. I just lucked out on the timing with my last one; I got deployed right before the deployments to KTO (Kuwait) started, and was lucky enough not to get pulled from one to the other. I'll get my turn, and I'll fill you in when I get back. Personally, that prospect doesn't really even bother me. Not that I want a fight, no sane man does. But I am confident in my training and my abilities where that is concerned. Not supremely so - there is always fear and uncertainty. But that is what it means to serve. If the call comes, you go. BTW, when someone calls me on something I defend my positions with logic. Call it squealing if you will. That is usually the best course. And just because johnheath has not served in that capacity does not lessen the validity of his ideas at all. I have a feeling that were he in a realistic (younger) position to do so, he would be / would have served. He's probably kicking himself for not deciding on it sooner... But at this point it is the thought that counts. And having thoughts about serving puts him higher in my book than someone who has had no such thoughts. Patriotism is a state of mind, not a state of record.
1. irrelevant. I never said or even implied that democracies fight each other. 2. democracies have been in more wars the past 100 years than any other form of government. 3. democracies have no problem attacking other countries, and have proved that many times the past 40 years. 4. wars are fought for tribal reasons, and the concomitant battle for resources that has existed since the first two tribes fought over water or game or territory.
treeman, you weren't the one squealing. john was. like his "partner" Trader John, he can dish it out but he can't take it. they both like to sling the snide comments, but run like little girls when you bark back at them. I'll remember your position the next you have something to say about Clinton. Patriotism is the last bastion of scoundrels. And while I appreciate the quality of your concluding sentence, it's not true. Patriotism is NOT a state of mind, it is taking ACTION when action is needed. That may be protesting in front of the White House. It's not merely joining the military, or even fighting. Those are evidence of commitment to a belief, and I respect that even as I disagree with the wisdom of this war. As for our soldiers coming back, how they feel now and how they feel in 1 or 2 or 3 years may not be the same. But they joined and they did what the commander in chief ordered so I respect that. I'll be curious to see if they feel the same after 10,000 come down with the newest version of Gulf War Syndrome, only to have their medical requests ignored or turned down.
I don't talk about Clinton much, FF. Actually, I was against the whole impeachment ordeal... Not to say that I actually like the guy. But irrelevant. Test: Name 10 wars over the past 100 years that democracies have actually started. Here are 10 that dictatorships/non-democracies have started: 1) WWI 2) WWII (really counts as 3 here, as 3 dictatorships on 3 fronts, but...) 3) Gulf War I 4) Vietnam 5) Korea 6) Angola 7) Bosnia / Kosovo (again, technically two, maybe more if you want to pick "Bosnia" apart, but...) 8) Afghanistan / USSR 9) Arab/Israeli wars (really six here, but...) 10) Chinese Communist "Revolution" Note that these are all of the major wars of this century, if severity of the conflict is important to the question at all. And there are more, obviously. Your mind probably ticked off a few extras just reading these. But please, give ten examples of democracies starting wars this century. Only when you present those can you maintain your argument on that one. Wow. I guess I can agree in the sense that it can be used as a cop-out, and if that was what you're implying, OK. But... I hope that was what you meant with this one. No, patriotism is a belief. It is not an action. It is typically an actionable belief, but that is not the same thing. The person who believes thaty his country is right and supports it in principle is still a patriot. Sure, it helps to actually do something to support it, but that is not absolutely necessary. One need not be a partisan to be a patriot. And it may well be the same. Neither you nor I know what will hold then; time will tell. Cool. Some don't, so that alone puts you ahead of some in my book... Probably not gonna see that one this time around, as the first one was the result of Saddam's WMD being released into the atmosphere, and as we all know that didn't happen this time around... But if it does, and especially if I end up getting it, you can bet I'll be right next to you screaming outside the VA about it... Don't hold your breath, though.
treeman, the saying Patriotism is the last bastion of scoundrels is a well known saying. It is a variation of a famous quote by Samuel Johnson Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel.
