I’ve wanted to post this syllogism since Clyburn’s statement…
[Posted by WLS]
and after reading Hugh Hewitt’s interview with John Burns, reading Obama’s speech, and laughing at Arianna Huffington’s (un)intentional double-entre about “blowing… off … General Petraeus” one sentence after analogizing his coming report to getting “sex advice from Jenna Jamison.” Is that a little projection on Ariana’s part? Who knew she was a sucker for a man in uniform. [I know, now I’ve gone an double-entre’ed her myself]
But, here’s my syllogism:
The leaders of the Dimocrat Party are determined as a matter of policy to withdraw troops from Iraq.
Bad news concerning military actions in Iraq makes the Dimocrat Party leadership’s goal more achievable.
Therefore, the Dimocrat Party leadership is gladdened by bad news concerning military actions in Iraq as it improves their chances of advancing their policy goal.
Discuss amongst yourselves.
I do not see any flaws in that.
JD (26820f) — 8/1/2007 @ 5:05 pmThe Democrat party apparatus wants America defeated in Iraq. They see it as a good thing, for them.
I can’t wait to hear how it restores America’s prestige in the international community.
Pablo (99243e) — 8/1/2007 @ 5:06 pm“I can’t wait to hear how it restores America’s prestige in the international community.”
Yeah, thee only good news is that it will be a minimum of 40 years before the idiots that took us into Iraq, with reckless disregard for the consequences, ever occupy an office that gives them
Semanticleo (4741c2) — 8/1/2007 @ 5:16 pmequivalent power.
Semanticleo, you might worry that there will never be the sort of power again in an American office if you get your wish. Of course, you are clueless about the implications for the country. I’m sure that the French politicians who hoped for a German victory in 1940 never considered the possibility that they, themselves, might end up at the end of a rope. Or in a gas chamber.
Mike K (86bddb) — 8/1/2007 @ 5:21 pmSemanticleo,
So I assume you believe that Ms. Clinton And Edwards will never be President, and that you’re an Obama supporter?
DWPittelli (2e1b8e) — 8/1/2007 @ 5:30 pmI’m willing to bet that Semanticleo’s crystal ball is covered in snot.
Pablo (99243e) — 8/1/2007 @ 5:30 pmROFL, Pablo. You owe me a keyboard.
Robin Roberts (6c18fd) — 8/1/2007 @ 5:31 pm“Ms. Clinton And Edwards’
Count me as one of the victims of the shamscam, but
Semanticleo (4741c2) — 8/1/2007 @ 5:32 pmmy learning curve is a bit steeper than some.
Wider, too.
Pablo (99243e) — 8/1/2007 @ 5:35 pm“Wider, too.”
…as in wider than narrow and myopic?
This NeoCon wet dream is what’s covering your
Semanticleo (4741c2) — 8/1/2007 @ 5:38 pmcrystal ball, Pablo.
Let’s start here, Semanticleo. 40 years from now, anyone involved with the decision to go into Iraq will be dead, not occupying an office.
You do the math, and meanwhile, I’ll plant an oak tree. Then, I’ll come back and check with you when it’s about 70′ tall. Perhaps you’ll have figured it out by then.
Pablo (99243e) — 8/1/2007 @ 5:44 pmsementicleo – How will retreating in the face of victory and leaving a few million brown people to be slaughtered restore our prestige in the international community?
Certainly, next time the world needs us to fix something, they will question whether or not half of the American political spectrum has the stones to see it through to completion.
Who really gives a flying fuck about our prestige in the international community? It is not keeping us from being the greatest nation on earth. It is not keeping people from wanting to come here en masse. This whole international prestige things is better left to the Jimmah Carters of the world.
JD (26820f) — 8/1/2007 @ 5:44 pmLet me clarify it for you Karnak.
“It’s the ideology, stupid!”
Semanticleo (4741c2) — 8/1/2007 @ 5:45 pm“How will retreating in the face of victory and leaving a few million brown people to be slaughtered restore our prestige in the international community?”
Yes, it IS a tragedy. War should be entered with great trepidation and sound thinking. Just ‘doing something’ is not always better than doing something later. The WOT should be engaged with the precision of a scalpel, not a truncheon wielded in haste.
Semanticleo (4741c2) — 8/1/2007 @ 5:49 pmPablo – I am fairly certain that 40 years from now, there will still not be a cure for end stage BDS.
JD (26820f) — 8/1/2007 @ 5:49 pmThat’s a wonderful clarification, Semanticleo, try explaining Fermat’s Theorem next.
Robin Roberts (6c18fd) — 8/1/2007 @ 5:50 pmSo, Miss Cleo, you have no problem just leaving a few million brown people to be slaughtered, because you do not like President Bush, and it will be a Viet Nam-esque victory for your side.
You did not answer the question, but rather made a statement about a question not asked. BTW, it would not be a tragedy. The slaughter is absolutely avoidable, and is completely foreseeable. That is not a tragedy, or even an accident.
JD (26820f) — 8/1/2007 @ 5:52 pm“try explaining Fermat’s Theorem next.”
You have to consider your audience.
Semanticleo (4741c2) — 8/1/2007 @ 5:52 pm, “because you do not like President Bush,”
Said the Simpleton…….
Semanticleo (4741c2) — 8/1/2007 @ 5:54 pmDeductive logic…..
You don’t like the War in Iraq because you don’t like Bush.
or….
You don’t like Bush because he is a fool who took us to Iraq without thinking about the consequences…
Semanticleo (4741c2) — 8/1/2007 @ 5:56 pmYes, semen, you are a complex one. Layer upon layer of nuance, have you. You are without a doubt one of the most stimulating unpredictable trolls that any of us will encounter on these here innertubes.
Actually, were it not for your general incoherence, and your propensity for answering questions not asked, your BDS and standard Leftist talking points are as predictable as the Cubs not winning the Series.
JD (26820f) — 8/1/2007 @ 5:58 pmWow — this is a good ol’fashioned food fight, and not one comment about Ariana Jamison.
WLS (077d0d) — 8/1/2007 @ 5:58 pmRight. Never considered the consequences. Never crossed his mind. Nope.
For such an uncurious dumb ass, he sure fooled all of those Democrats into voting for the war.
Is he a dumb ass, or an evil manipulative genius?
So, when Obama invades Pakistan, you will be all cool with that.
JD (26820f) — 8/1/2007 @ 6:00 pmWLS – Ariana already made one guy switch teams, and the more I see of her, the more it makes sense.
JD (26820f) — 8/1/2007 @ 6:01 pmanyone involved with the decision to go into Iraq will be dead, not occupying an office.
Given that some of the people involved in that decision were in their 40s and 50s, I find this unlikely. 40 years from now, the odds are that at least one of them will still be alive.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 8/1/2007 @ 6:03 pmHow will retreating in the face of victory and leaving a few million brown people to be slaughtered restore our prestige in the international community
This is a good question, and one of the reasons why, despite having opposed the decision to go into Iraq in the first place, I now oppose plans to leave.
Whether or not we should have gone in, we’re there; and leaving precipitously would be to invite catastrophe.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 8/1/2007 @ 6:04 pmWho really gives a flying fuck about our prestige in the international community?
Our medium- and long-term ability to bring about change in the world depends more on our ability to persuade than it does on our ability to force. Using force in a way which reduces our persuasive abilities may occasionally be required, but it’s something that we should do only with reluctance, when there are no other alternatives.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 8/1/2007 @ 6:06 pmI can’t wait to hear how that works. And I’d love to hear which of the Iraq “deciders” you expect will be vying for office in 40 years.
Pablo (99243e) — 8/1/2007 @ 6:11 pmaphrael – The medium and long term ability to bring about change will be even more crippled should we, once again, fail to have the political will to finish what we started. My anger at Miss Cleo made me spit that out there. However, the opinion polls on what individual Euros think of us are useless, but constantly trotted out by the likes of the psychic Leo, and the rest of the Left. Clearly, they are not just willing to cede control of our government to opinion polls, but opinion polls of people not of our country.
Thank you for your measured response, since that is clearly not one of my strong suits.
JD (26820f) — 8/1/2007 @ 6:13 pmThe leaders of the Dimocrat Party are determined as a matter of policy to withdraw troops from Iraq.
So is the White House.
A troop reduction will have begun well before the November ’08 elections, regardless of the situation on the ground. Not a chance 160,000 U.S. troops will be in a combat or combat support role in 15 months.
Inevitably, both sides will claim credit.
steve (3338cb) — 8/1/2007 @ 6:30 pmSteve – One side wants to do it regardless of whether or not it is the right time, or right decision. One side has that as a goal, governed by the situation on the ground. Should those paths intersect, all the better, but the Dems will have done nothing to advance us towards the achievable goals.
JD (26820f) — 8/1/2007 @ 6:35 pmQuite a few Republicans never want our troops to leave Iraq.
Bad military news furthers that goal.
Therefore, Republicans are gladdened by bad news from Iraq.
alphie (015011) — 8/1/2007 @ 6:56 pm“Quite a few Republicans” leads to “Republicans”?
You are philisophy-challenged. That is not a syllogism — is a polemic.
Name the Republicans in your first line.
WLS (077d0d) — 8/1/2007 @ 7:02 pmHow about every Republican Senator except except Collins, Smith, Hagel and Snowe, WLS?
alphie (015011) — 8/1/2007 @ 7:09 pmalphie – Prove it. Show that all of the Republican Senators that you referenced want us to never leave Iraq. Put up or shut up.
JD (26820f) — 8/1/2007 @ 7:12 pmOne side has that as a goal, governed by the situation on the ground.
No, what governs the situation is the White House cannot sustain this force level much beyond next April. We should have had a team led by Petraeus from the get go.
Remember the 11 year Iraq-Iran war? Who won? No one.
steve (3338cb) — 8/1/2007 @ 7:15 pmNobody has said that the surge will be required to last beyond next April. Fuck, the Dems declared it a failure before it started. Now, you are sitting here, using your retrospect-o-scope arguing troop levels. When the Dems wanted more boots on the ground, they got them, and then declared the troops to be failures. Let’s just strategically withdraw, not retreat, to Okinawa.
JD (26820f) — 8/1/2007 @ 7:22 pmNobody has said that the surge will be required to last beyond next April.
And nobody said this can be won militarily. These are things no one can solve without years and years of intense, dedicated labor and we have not the time, personnel, material nor the will to do it.
The General will report what his superiors want to hear. And a troop drawdown will start next Spring for reasons that have nothing to do with the security situation extant.
steve (3338cb) — 8/1/2007 @ 7:40 pmWe have the ability to fix this. What we lack, or at least a good percentage of the population lacks, is the patience and political will to do so. It is not just something that we can just fix in a neat package, wrapped with a bow.
Why even bother with the “we support the troops” crap then. General Petraes, who Dirty Harry was happy to confirm, is now nothing more than a politcal mouthpiece for the Administration?
You are exactly the audience that Sen. Reid was speaking to when he said, to paraphrase, that whatever the Generals said simply does not matter.
Left – We support the troops, except when we are accusing them of rape, murder, and various other war crimes. Listen to the generals, except when the Generals say something that we do not agree with, then they are just political hacks. More boots on the ground – we failed. Change strategy.
You clowns are sick.
JD (26820f) — 8/1/2007 @ 7:47 pmThe slaughter is absolutely avoidable, and is completely foreseeable.
Quite true. That the current situation
would be the result of any American invasion was completely foreseeable to anyone who actually paid attention to the Middle East. The people who should have avoided, and should have foreseen, but did not, are now in the White House. Don’t blame Democrats for this. If every Democrat were supporting the war as vigorously as you, the situation would still be the same. Having the will to win is important only when one is able to win. Since winning was never possible–that is, no result beneficial to American interests was ever possible–the will to win is not relevant. The only thing that is relevant is the ability to determine the course of action which is least harmful to American interests.
Your mistake is in thinking that withdrawal is harmful to American interests. In fact, not withdrawing is even more harmful. It’s rather like a heroin addict thinking of going sober. Withdrawal from the drug is far from pleasant, and causes short term harm; not withdrawing may be pleasant but has extremely bad long term effects.
kishnevi (6273ad) — 8/1/2007 @ 7:58 pmJFK would be sick at what these people have done to his once proud party.
JD (26820f) — 8/1/2007 @ 8:13 pm“Whatever the Generals said simply does not matter.”
On the contrary, JD, it matters very much.
Here is what Patraeus said at his confirmation hearg:
In addition to overcoming security challenges, success in Iraq depends on actions in political and economic areas like:
1. Governance
2. The distribution of oil revenues
3. National reconciliation
4. Improvement in the capacity of Iraq’s ministries
5. The establishment of the rule of law
6. Economic development
In each category he listed, complete failure over the past 6+ months.
Time to go.
alphie (015011) — 8/1/2007 @ 8:21 pmWe have the ability to fix this.
Only in the sense there are fewer people to be killed as neighborhoods become ethnically cleansed and segregated. Iraq is in humanitarian meltdown.
The Sunni militias we’re building up to fight al Qaeda in Anbar and Diyala are also anti-government. The ‘lesser-evil’ rationale has a short horizon.
Any ’08 candidate or party claiming credit for the troops coming out should be ridiculed.
steve (ae6778) — 8/1/2007 @ 8:28 pmI am convinced that it iss more likely to be successful standing in front of a brick wall and demanding that it speak Japanese than for Alphie to be intellectually honest.
Steve – The only credit to be earned for a withdrawal of the troops is if/when we are succeeding in our endeavors.
This “it’s too hard” mindset flies in the face of much of what has made our country what it is today.
JD (26820f) — 8/1/2007 @ 8:35 pmI never thought I would find anyone who could make Barbara Boxer appear to be intelligent, then I listened to Ariana! About as smart as a bag of farts.
Another Drew (8018ee) — 8/1/2007 @ 10:21 pm**Kishnevi – “That the current situation
would be the result of any American invasion was completely foreseeable to anyone who actually paid attention to the Middle East. … The only thing that is relevant is the ability to determine the course of action which is least harmful to American interests.”
I agree with your first comment to the extent that the current situation was a possible, even probable, but not inevitable result of the invasion. If we had gone in with the troop levels Gen. Shineski recommended and handled the post invasion scenario more intelligently, we would be in a much better position than we are now.
That, however, is all water under the bridge at this point, and your second statement I vehemently disagree with. I don’t think it is either practical or honorable at this point to say that the only interests we should consider are ours. We created this mess in Iraq and many Iraqi’s have died and are dying every day because of decisions we have made. We must continue to do all we can to improve the situation in Iraq and this will take more time, more money, and unfortunately, more American lives. To leave the Iraqi’s in the mess we’ve created for them at this point would be a travesty and not worthy of us.
JayHub` (8ba390) — 8/1/2007 @ 10:51 pmJayHub, it would also be a detriment to our interests. We can only lose by quitting, which is exactly what the left wants us to do. There is no enemy there that can overcome us.
Pablo (99243e) — 8/2/2007 @ 3:01 amPatterico –
You might want to move the syllogism start back a few steps. Maybe something like:
– Democrats want to maximize their political power
– The simplest way to maximize political power is to defeat, reverse, or block any measures or policies advocated by the Republicans because any successes increase Republican political power
– Any damage done or problems created by Democrats in the course of the above can be dealt with later when they get in power, or maybe even blamed on Republicans (after all THEY were in power back then)
– The most visible Republican initiative is the war in Iraq.
jim (6482d8) — 8/2/2007 @ 4:44 amfermat had several different theorems. which one do you want?
people do not advance their arguments at all by spelling it “dimocrat”. it smacks of the juvenile monkey-poo flingers, making one much less likely to concentrate on the material. some of you address democrats in language formerly reserved for enemies of our country, and i wonder about your ability to adapt when the ground shifts.
iraq’s going great, isn’t it? the sunnis have just pulled out of the government, and the parliament is on vacation for the entire month of august. two groups who are not on vacation are our soldiers and the people rigging the ied’s to blow them up.
the petraeus report will be a document in graytones, just you wait. bush has carefully selected his generals in large part the same way he selected his u.s. attorneys, by tossing a number of the potentially more independent thinkers and actors off the train. he defers presidential judgments to the generals, telling us he will abide by their advice, but the generals were chosen for their reluctance to implicate administration policy for this disaster, so the buck in truman’s “the buck stops here” has been repositioned in a quantum mechanical way between the president and the generals so as always to be with the party you are not observing. i call this a quantum buck.
the occupationalists somewhat shrilly accuse us withdrawalists of being willing to sacrifice a million brown people in a vietnam-style cut and run, and i confess, it’s true. the alternative is to sacrifice three americans a day for an indefinitely long period, the end of which has been insufficiently articulated by our president. i know that for many of you who don’t have loved ones in the military, three americans a day is no more troubling than your isp’s monthly hit on your visa card. i vote for sacrificing the brown people, because that’s like a great big hit on somebody else’s visa card, since i am, after all, an american first and foremost, not a democrat. we got rid of saddam hussein, hooray, their soccer team can now go forth and win games without fear of torture if they lose, time to take a bow and get off the stage. we are not responsible for the fact that these people have hated each other since the time of mohammed’s son-in-law, and we have subscribed to no indenture pledging our lives and fortunes to mediating this hatred.
assistant devil's advocate (858423) — 8/2/2007 @ 5:06 am**assistant devil’s advocate – True, I don’t have my immediate loved ones in this fight; that is one of the problems of this war, it’s cost does not come home to many people.
But in the Spring my wife held a young woman in her arms in my house as the young woman cried out her fear when her Marine husband redeployed for the third time to Iraq. Last night we sat on Delmar Beach at Camp Pendleton with a friend who is a retired Lt. Col. talking about the cost not just in dead and wounded, but those who come back scarred from another insurgent conflict where the enemy is so difficult to identify. I remember thinking how young the marines who checked us in looked and how serious; and seeing all the other visitors and families around who have been so impacted by this conflict. I often watch the PBS News Hour in the evening. Jim Lehrer, the host is an ex-Marine, and at the end of many broadcasts, they show in silence the names and photos of those who have given their lives in Iraq. It’s tragic to watch. I have lost a child and think of the pain these losses cause the families involved. In response to this, one of the things I do these days, I’m retired also, is to assist the VA in taking care of disabled veterans.
Even so, I think we need to stay and finish what we started for lots of reasons. Yes, we are not responsible for the ancient tribal animosities in Iraq, but we are responsible for creating the chaos that has unleashed them.
JayHub` (8ba390) — 8/2/2007 @ 6:47 amI am a supporter of the war. I am also a veteran, having spent 28 years in the military which included a tour in Vietnam. My son, following in my footsteps is about to deploy on his 7th tour of duty in the middle East. As I am no longer serving, I may be referred to as a chicken hawk. To that I say, better a chicken hawk than chicken shit.
tmac (0c909a) — 8/2/2007 @ 7:21 amada,
No, the alternative is to do what we’ve been doing all along. The alternative is to get Iraqi forces stood up and in charge. The alternative is to enlist Iraqis into the defense of their own self interest. The new wrinkle is that we’re doing more of what we should have been doing more of to begin with, which is smashing insurgent/terrorist groups.
That’s what you’re going to hear from Petreaus, and you’re going to hear that these crucial things are progressing apace.
As for the Iraqi government, it’s no surprise that they’re hesitant to make concessions now when the US Congress keeps signaling that they want us to abandon Iraq and see them settle their differences via civil war.
Pablo (99243e) — 8/2/2007 @ 7:49 amI am also a veteran, having spent 28 years in the military which included a tour in Vietnam. My son, following in my footsteps is about to deploy on his 7th tour of duty in the middle East. As I am no longer serving, I may be referred to as a chicken hawk.
As I understand the meaning of the term, you may *not* be referred to as a chicken hawk; the fact that you are a veteran renders you ineligible.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 8/2/2007 @ 8:25 amPatterico –
You might want to move the syllogism start back a few steps
It’s not Patterico’s syllogism to move.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 8/2/2007 @ 8:25 amOh, no. If you support what we’re doing, and you’re not currently taking enemy fire, you can be considered a chickenhawk. Logic doesn’t really come into play with those using the term.
Pablo (99243e) — 8/2/2007 @ 8:37 am“Dimocrat.” Cute. Your syllogism suffers from a missing premise:
“The Dimocrat leadership is gladdened by any news whatsoever that would help them achieve their policy goal.”
That’s the key one, which I’m sure is true. I know for a fact that Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi have a weekly party where they celebrate the number of people killed in Iraq: 1 vodka shot for 3 dead Americans, 1 tequila shot for 50 dead Iraqis. As you can imagine, they’re pretty fucked up by the end.
As a Dimocrat myself, I can’t help but letting loose with a deafening war whoop every time someone is maimed or killed (which the Dimocrat leadership has sent out to every loyal Dimocrat via text message). “YES!! One step closer to withdrawal!! I really hate the troops! I wonder if there’s anything I can do for the insurgents?!”
Russell (a32796) — 8/2/2007 @ 8:42 am“Even so, I think we need to stay and finish what we started for lots of reasons. Yes, we are not responsible for the ancient tribal animosities in Iraq, but we are responsible for creating the chaos that has unleashed them.”
And what if our leaving decreases the violence?
AF (4a3fa6) — 8/2/2007 @ 8:58 am**AF – If our leaving decreases the violence I would be in favor of it, but I think that such a result is the least likely possibility. I find the analysis by John Burns, the NYTimes bureau chief in Iraq, compelling (among others):
“I don’t think that all hope is extinguished, and I do think, as do many of my colleagues in the media here, that an accelerated early withdrawal, something which reduced American troops, even if they were placed in large bases out in the desert to, say, something like 60-80,000 over a period of six to nine months, and in effect, leaving the fighting in the cities and the approaches to the cities to the Iraqis, I think the result of that would, in effect, be a rapid, a rapid progress towards an all-out civil war. … and I know for a fact, that the sort of figures that were being discussed amongst senior American officials here, as a potential, should there be an early withdrawal and a progress to an all-out civil war, they’re talking about the possibility of as many as a million Iraqis dying. Now of course, that is suppositional. It’s entirely hypothetical. How could we possibly know? But I think you couldn’t rule out that possibility. And the question then arises, catastrophic as the effect on Iraq and the region would be, you know, what would be the effect on American credibility in the world, American power in the world, and America’s sense of itself?” [Interview by Hugh Hewitt, 7-30-07]
JayHub` (8ba390) — 8/2/2007 @ 9:29 amJohn Burns.
AF (4a3fa6) — 8/2/2007 @ 9:52 amHow’s his arabic?.
Is he what you’d call an expert on the region? Going to press conferences all day and listening to translators?
Read him, then read others.
Read this from Conflicts Forum.
“Behind the Mansour Hotel bombing”
These are the experts.
AF (4a3fa6) — 8/2/2007 @ 9:55 amaphrael – chickenhawk has been expanded to people, on the right, that are no longer serving, or have not yet forced their children to serve.
AF – Your crystal ball is working overtime. Once we leave Iraq is going to return to puppies in the streets, and kids flying kites and playing with balloons in the streets?
JD (26820f) — 8/2/2007 @ 10:43 amHmmm…..
Pablo (99243e) — 8/2/2007 @ 10:58 am**AF – Well, yes, actually I do think John Burns is an expert in Iraq. He has reported on and off for over 15 years from Iraq . He was one of the few reporters who stayed in Baghdad, holed up in the Palestine Hotel, during the invasion, and has been in Iraq most of the time for the past 5 years. He has probably spent more time in Iraq than any other reporter working and is clearly not a briefing sitter. He has won two Pulitzers, one for reporting from Sarajevo and one from Afghanistan under the Taliban.
Burns has made many Iraqi friends in his time there and … “it fills [him] with dread to think that they would be left to face the consequences of all of this without our … support.” He thinks the best advice “anybody could give an Iraqi faced with [the current] situation would be that if he could get his family to safety now, it would probably be a wise thing to do.” He notes, however, that that’s “Easier said than done.”
I find Burns to be one of the few independent analysts of the situation in Iraq. He is neither a supporter nor a critic of the Administration and his reporting is both intelligent and nuanced. He is not putting lipstick on a pig. He would agree, for instance, with the commentators you cite, that the political situation in Iraq has deteriorated, not improved in the last six months. The question remains, however, what to do about that, and what the consequences of our decision will be. I would commend the entire interview to you:
http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/Transcript_Page.aspx?ContentGuid=5bdb3520-d829-4fdb-a2bc-6611d80faba4&comments=true
JayHub` (8ba390) — 8/2/2007 @ 11:18 amJD, Pablo: as a linguistic descriptivist I can’t really decry shifts in word meaning, but if I could do so, this would be a good case for it.
“Chickenhawk” as an epithet directed at people who wanted to use the military but were too cowardly to fight themselves at least made some sort of sense. “Chickenhawk” as an epithet directed at people who want to use the military and are not too cowardly to fight themselves, but are prevented from doing so by some other factor, is absurd.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 8/2/2007 @ 12:06 pmaphrael – I agree that the original meaning of the word at least made some semblence of sense. It was utterly misguided and showed a profound lack of understanding of the military and civilian control of same, but at least I understood where it came from. The new iterations are just senseless. Having served previously, and out on a medical discharge, I have been called a chickenhawk for not re-enlisting. I have also been called a chickenhawk for not forcing my child, who happens to be 5 freaking years old, to enlist. I happen to like traditional commonly accepted usages of words, but as of late, the Left has taken the language and is really ascribing whatever meaning they wish to words, which infuriates me.
JD (26820f) — 8/2/2007 @ 1:26 pmHere you go, guys:
http://tinyurl.com/29jwsc
Just select jobs in Iraq…there’s plenty of ’em open!
1030 at KBR alone, in fact.
Here’s the first 25:
#431076 Government Compliance Associate Iraq Compliance
alphie (015011) — 8/2/2007 @ 1:38 pm#431067 Associate Subcontract Administrator Iraq SubContracts
#430922 Mechanic Iraq Maintenance
#430918 Mechanic Iraq Maintenance
#430913 Mechanic Iraq Maintenance
#430909 HVAC Foreman Iraq HVAC
#430905 HVAC Mechanic Iraq HVAC
#430901 Plumber Iraq Plumbing
#430897 Carpenter Iraq Carpentry
#430893 Laborer Foreman Iraq General Craft
#430889 Laborer Foreman Iraq General Craft
#430885 Electrician Iraq Electrical
#430875 Heavy Truck Driver (Fuel) Iraq Transportation
#430870 Electrician Iraq General Craft
#430864 Administrative Associate Iraq Administrative Services
#430860 Generator Mechanic Iraq Power Generation
#430856 Electrician Iraq Electrical
#430804 ROWPU Operator Iraq Water and Sewerage
#430758 Plumber Iraq Plumbing
#430738 Mechanic Iraq Maintenance
#430737 Operator, Crane Iraq Equipment Operations
#430714 Logistics Coordinator Iraq Billeting
#430712 Maintenance Mechanic Iraq Maintenance
#430687 Heavy Truck Driver Iraq Transportation
#430541 Materials Control Specialist Iraq Materials Control
Just select jobs in Iraq…there’s plenty of ‘em open!
RE: 431076 Government Compliance Associate Iraq Compliance.
Could I work out of my home, or maybe wi-fi at Starbucks?
steve (685867) — 8/2/2007 @ 3:12 pmaphrael – I rest my case.
JD (a248f3) — 8/2/2007 @ 3:45 pmSo Alphie, while arguing that someone that CAN’T serve isn’t a chickenhawk, then proceeds to basically call them a what .. jobchicken?
Lord Nazh© (c4715e) — 8/2/2007 @ 3:52 pmI don’t think I was in on the “chickenhawk” discussion, Nazh.
But you heard Gen. Patraeus, Iraq’s economic development is as important to the success of the Glourious Occupation as anything the U.S. military might do.
If you are a True Believer who can’t serve in the U.S. military, you can always get a civilian job there to help out the cause.
alphie (015011) — 8/2/2007 @ 4:03 pmThe Chickenhawk meme, eh?
All right, to anybody who slings this logical fallacy around:
You are not allowed to talk about poverty unless you yourself open and operate a homeless shelter.
You are not allowed to talk about health care unless you yourself become a physician and open a clinic.
You are not allowed to talk about education unless you yourself go to college become a and teacher.
You are not allowed to talk smack about Bush or any other elected official unless you yourself run for office and are elected.
You are not allowed to talk about law unless you yourself become a lawyer and join a law firm…or become a prosecutor.
You are not allowed to analyze Miss Cleo unless you yourself can produce an advanced degree in Abnormal Psychology and Narcissistic Personality Disorder.
And Alphie, you are not allowed to post anymore leftist tripe unless you yourself come out of the closet and declare yourself a liberal Democrat.
Bill Whittle points out:
Think about that the next time you toss that little Chickenhawk grenade at someone.
Paul (8077b1) — 8/2/2007 @ 4:33 pmWow, Paul,
I was just providing info to the people who mistakenly thought they couldn’t serve in Iraq because they couldn’t qualify for the U.S. military…theycan!
As for me being a “liberal Democrat,” I’m not the one trying to force a failed $150,000,000,000 a year social experiment down the throats of the American taxpayer.
You guys are the big-spendin’ lefties.
And we’ve got the federal debt to prove it.
alphie (015011) — 8/2/2007 @ 4:43 pmCome out of the closet, alphie.
We won’t mock you…much.
Paul (8077b1) — 8/2/2007 @ 4:51 pm