Many bloggers have linked to Andrew Sullivan’s compilation with cer…

We have one less intender. America is safer.

Iran next.

It merely points out the hypocrisy of those whom advocate the use of military force when they themselves were unwilling or somehow actively avoided their responsibility to serve when it was their time to do so.

Think of it as shorthand.

It also is argument-by-slander, which merely serves to make your cause look bankrupt. The same applies equally to the ‘guilt-by-association’ attacks on wingnuts generalized to a larger group they aren’t fully representative of. If you cannot and will not address the factual arguments of your opponents, and instead resort to just taking cheap shots against their character instead, you make yourself look pathetic.

Thanks for the reminder. I need to get a half dozen or so of those for stocking stuffers. ;)

—-

Andrew Ian Dodge: It is as if you believe that terrorists operate in total isolation from one another.

Does it really matter if Hussein had anything to do with 9/11? Arenâ??t we sending an unambiguous message in either event? Do you think that terrorist and anti-American forces (anti-democratic, anti-liberty) are happy about the prospects of a democracy in Iraq?

This war achieves our purpose and thwarts the purpose of those who oppose us.

Are ALL women “Chickenhawks” (historically) according to your point of view?

MA: â?¦ are you a soldier [a Man] or a cheerleader [a Woman]?

MA: In other words, you can’t/won’t go to fight, but are content to sit back and let others do it.

Like a women?

MA: none of that will change my opinion of pro-war people who refuse to put on a uniform or get their panties in a twist when we call them “chickenhawks.”

â??pantiesâ????

The meaning of this meme is not self-evident and its premise has disturbing consequences.

I would suggest making an honest argument clearly stating your case instead of relying on slurs based on crypto-fascist premises and designed to shut down honest discussion.

That despite the best efforts of Liberals, Atheists, and Secularists worldwide, there are still consequences for action?

John Kennedy: The more fundamental question is whether it is for the individual to decide how his time, life and treasure is to be spent or whether we as a group may justly decide for him.

The more fundamental question is whether it is for the Rapist/Murderer to decide how his time, life and treasure are to be spent or whether we as a Society may justly decide for him.

John Kennedy: Your formulation fails to challenge the collectivist premise.

Subjective morality and Absolute morality appear to be at opposite ends of the spectrum â?¦ until you connect the ray to form a circle.

Brooke Oberwetter: We get it, JTK. You’re still paying your taxes. It all sucks.

Obviously (if you are JTK) the only way to â??stopâ? crime is by banning all guns.

Similarly the only way to â??stopâ? coercion is by banning all government.

John Kennedy: How do you expect to make headway arguing against collectivism if you don’t reject the premise?

What gives you the right to self-defense?

Does Society have the right to incarcerate or otherwise punish Individuals who commit criminal acts against members of that society?

What gives you the right to kill an animal and eat it?

John Kennedy: Can’t Ralph Nader right say that the argument between him and Radley is not whether to coerce individuals via the state but rather how much to so coerce them?

Sure, why not?

Bob: Diego, I’m with you 100%! Libertarian foreign policy is for a world in which there is no aggression between nations, and no terrorism. In short it is not a foreign policy for this world.

Yes â?¦ I couldnâ??t agree more. In fact, I would say it was a foreign policy for Fantasyland which is the exact same place where Anarchy is a workable system.

Keep in mind, Mr. Balko is more of a Liberal in Libertarianâ??s clothing. Iâ??m not sure that all â??trueâ? Libertarians are so isolationist or naïve.

Occam’s Razor becons.

How do you know if I am pro or anti war? My comment was on the capture of Saddam. My personal preference was him to be found …. shall we say …. metaphysically challenged. I would have advanced to the lead of the 2003 Dead Pool and likely to win $150. I did not speak about entertainment through war.

The Dead Pool, as explained above, is about trying to guess the famous and not-so who will die in a given year. Not entertainment through war but mild interest in death.

And where did I get this ugly/indifferent attitude on death? Why, while flying E-2C Hawkeyes, off of carriers (circa 1991 …. if that date has any significance to you.) I’ve seen plenty of my friends die. It gives you a different attitude about death.

So, get off my ass sonny. I’ve done my time.

The link between Saddam and Iraq has been blown open by the supposed memo found in which Mohammed Atta was in an Iraqi training class for terrorism. If this document is true, then Saddam’s hands have American blood on them, not including the over 400 American soldiers and civilians killed since the war started.

I think we need to celebrate the capture of Saddam before pointing and blaming Bush for not nabbing Osama. The situations are completely different. In Iraq, Saddam was hated by a majority of the people. Sooner or later he would be found. There was never a doubt in my mind. With Osama, this man is BELOVED by his people, supported by almost everyone because he does not attack his own. Most of the country see him as a spiritual hero. Everyone will hide him, where in Iraq, everyone wanted to find him.

Osama may never be found simply because he has the will of the people behind him. It will take a lot larger of an effort to bring Osama to justice. Lets be patient, as Osama stays hidden longer his own ego will drive him into the open. He will make a mistake, and the hunt will get closer. Until then, lets just be happy and pleased we got one madman out of the way.

Bernard
http://www.bluecanine.com

There are many reasons why someone might not have served in the military. The military turns away alot of people for a variety of reasons. If someone tried to join and is turned away do they have to shut up if they support a policy of military action? I don’t think so.

Even if someone never attempted to join the military, or even thought of it, should they be forced to keep their opinions to themselves if they have a particular point of view regarding military action? Of course not, we have a voluntary force.

For the record I have tried to join the military (turned away twice) and I did not support going to war since the case was not made in my mind.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion and has the right to express that opinion.

Maybe you should switch to decaf. Thook was referring to a death pool that most likely has nothing to do with the war. I would assume by your scathing reprimand of thook that you have no idea what a death pool is. You choose names of high profile people who you think will die in that year (the scoring I’m not familiar with as I have never played one). I can see attacking death pools on other grounds but I doubt it was meant specifically to make entertainment out of the war. John Ritter would have been a good pick for a death pool for instance and if I’m not mistaken he has nothing to do with the war. Besides maybe it was a joke (gasp, how could you joke about the death of an evil tyrant who committed mass murder on his own people?).

CALM DOWN!!!