T1B

Gunslinger wrote:... redecorating.

Moving Sale wrote:

Gunslinger wrote:... redecorating.

I can't even clean the house how the hell am I going to find time to redecorate?

Moving Sale wrote:

Rudolph wrote:Is this Gunslinger fellow always this stupid?

Talk about a zero.

Rudolph wrote:Is this Gunslinger fellow always this stupid?

Talk about a zero.

Moving Sale wrote:

mvscal wrote:You aren't entitled to have an opinion on the war unless you have served.

Liberal skidmarks told me so.

Link?

There is this logical fallacy going about that says if you support the war you must also serve in the military.

The one response that makes me laugh out loud is that since most liberals also support doctor-assisted suicide they should immediately contact their physicians and partake in that which they so fervently champion. I wish I had thought of that, but I didn’t so let’s examine what this ridiculous canard is really saying.

We are being lead to believe that vocal support for the troops is pointless, even immoral, unless the person standing beneath the banner of the cause, and thereby receiving its benefits, also participates in the actions that are associated with that cause.

Currently the cause is bringing democracy to portions of the world that have been festering cesspools of tyranny since before human history and subsequently spawned and supported the ideologies that led to the attacks on 9/11. The response of the US and its allies isn’t so much an imposition of democracy as a denial of the same autocracy that got us into this mess in the first pace. Right now soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines are engaged denying the forces of autocracy a renewed foothold after the old tyranny has been dispatched and many people in the US are supportive of this effort. Those who support but are not serving in the military are being called, “chickenhawks” presumably because they are hawkish enough to support the war but too chicken to actually serve in that same war.

The first thing we must ask is: was it immoral for abolitionists to hope for a Union victory in the American Civil War or was it immoral for Americans to hope for an American victory in either World War or Korea or the Cold War? Are we to believe only the service members engaged in combat were entitled to wish for their own victory and their countrymen must simply accepted whatever fate came their way be it democracy or totalitarianism?

The second thing we can obviously ask: what are the percentages of war supporters having been current, future and/or former military servicemembers versus their counterparts in the antiwar movement? I willing to hazard a guess that the antiwar movement occupies less than a miniscule portion of the military even during times when Bill Clinton was making it an armed branch of the federal welfare system in places such as the streets of Mogadishu. If Hillary becomes president in 2008 I doubt the ranks of the military will suddenly swell with her loyal liberals determined to prove the US military is a force for bleeding-heart do-goodism in the global village. No, the liberals will remain firmly entrenched at their local coffeehouse clucking about this issue or that while the military will continue to be served by those that have always served it: true Americans and the warrior breed born among them. These warriors will serve faithfully even if they would find their CinC to be someone politically and morally reprehensible because the ideals of America are greater than any single president.

The third thing we must ask is: are one’s vocalizations really as worthless as the accusers are asserting? Considering one of the single biggest tactics used by the terrorists we are fighting is to kill anybody in Iraq that supports the new consensual government. Thus, vocalizations seem to matter enough to them to kill for. In fact, violence is only half of the terrorist equation; a terrorist act must either be publicized by being spectacular enough to garner media coverage and/or the terrorists must claim responsibility for their acts. In other words vocalization is necessary because it is meant to make the voice of the terrorists louder than the voice of the civil government. If the terrorists can overwhelm the government’s voice they stand a chance at receiving the capitulations they demand. Turn off their ability to vocalize/publicize and the violence loses its value.

But this leads us to something deeper and perhaps more sinister than we expected. If speaking out in favor of the war is worthless than speaking out against it must carry the same impotence. As much as we would like to humor ourselves with the thought that all the blustering antiwar protests are merely so much noise everyone is well aware that if antiwar sentiment were the only sentiments to be heard by the government the political pressure to withdraw from the war would be unbearable. I know it, you know it and the antiwar protesters know it as well. This is the crux of the issue; the antiwar crowd is using an extremely devious and dishonest trick to shame their opposition into silence. They are trying to make their voices the only voices heard...theirs and the terrorists.

That is a horrifying prospect; do not fall for it! Speak up. Speak loud. Speak often.

Let us instead expose the real chickenhawks. It is the antiwar protesters themselves. There is nothing unnatural or immoral for people enjoying the fruits of liberty to wish those same blessings on total strangers who were sworn enemies until a few short years ago. On the contrary this is the epitome of radical love for one's neighbor--even a neighbor whose name you probably can't even pronounce. After sacrificing blood and treasure to twice defeat the armies of Iraq, the war supporters eagerly look at the new democratic Iraq as a steadfast ally in the war against terrorism. Yet, antiwar protesters will not grant to the Iraqi people the same blessings they themselves so grievously pervert. The bra burners of the ‘60’s will surrender the women of the Middle East to be beaten for showing too much ankle as regimes of jihadism and totalitarianism would look enviously at a defanged US.

The antiwar types would have us believe that if they had their wishes of a de-funded US military being pulled from Iraq so that it might be returned to Saddam Hussein or subsumed by al Quaeda or a soon-to-be nuclear Iran that the freedom to criticize their government would somehow remain intact. If they find the thought of suicide bombers or fascist legions on the streets of the US it is only because the military that protects them has perhaps done its job too well at insulating their comfortable little bubbles of reality.

Support our troops AND their mission—if only because they are supporting yours.

frodo_biguns wrote:The one response that makes me laugh out loud is that since most liberals also support doctor-assisted suicide they should immediately contact their physicians and partake in that which they so fervently champion.

BSmack wrote:

frodo_biguns wrote:The one response that makes me laugh out loud is that since most liberals also support doctor-assisted suicide they should immediately contact their physicians and partake in that which they so fervently champion.

Fraudo, if you want a doctor to help end it all, I will certainly not stand in your way.

Rudolph wrote:"Cock and mouth" is an obvious fascination of yours, cowboy.

Are you a homosexual?

Or maybe just bi-curious?

Talk to us.

We'll leave our "discussion" on this board.

We promise, Gunswinger.

frodo_biguns wrote:Oh Goodie! On Monday Mr. Stewart is going to have the worst ex-President of the 20th century!!!!!!!!!!!!