 | Romney Gets It Right And Wrong On Military Enlistment |
In the wake of a campaign appearance gone bad in Bettendorf, Iowa, Mitt Romney is on the defensive. A person in the audience at a speech he gave there asked an unexpected question: How could Romney support George W. Bush’s policy of sending yet more soldiers into battle for the sake of a failed escalation strategy when not one of Mitt Romney’s own five sons has joined the military to fight in Iraq, though they are all of age to do so?
Mitt Romney’s response got it right and wrong. Romney responded that his sons were serving his country quite adequately, by working on their father’s campaign. That sounds like a self-serving answer, and it was awkwardly given, but the idea behind it is essentially right. In a democracy, citizen involvement in the political process, not military enlistment, is the highest form of service. It’s not politically popular to say so, but it’s not at all clear that America’s soldiers are actually serving the interests of the nation so much as they are serving the interests of certain political leaders who like to use soldiers as props.
However, in a larger sense, Romney’s answer also got it wrong. The question wasn’t just about the worth of military enlistment. It was about the decision by Mitt Romney not to encourage his own sons to join the military, given their his prominent push of other Americans’ children into battle. Mitt Romney’s position is hypocritical, given the fact that he is asking other young men and women to put themselves in harm’s way while not asking his own children to do the same.
The moral position of Mitt Romney’s sons is much more questionable. They have no obligation to go into battle just because their father supports an unwise war. However, by serving on their father’s political campaign, Romney’s sons are also supporting the policy of sending more soldiers into war. The position of Mitt Romney’s five sons is a position of craven cowardice. They say that they support the war. They say that they support sending more soldiers into battle, at a time when the military is having trouble recruiting enough soldiers to maintain the current level of fighting. Yet, they themselves are unwilling to go and do the fighting. They say that fighting is for others.
It’s fine to serve the country by being a politically active citizen. It is not fine to push other people to put their lives fighting in a war if one is not willing to fight in that war oneself.
Eight years of that kind of cowardly lack of responsibility has brought America dramatic military failure. We cannot afford to have four more years of it. We need a progressive President who opposes war for all Americans, not just for the people he or she knows and loves.
(Source: Associated Press, August 8, 2007)
Contact Us
Your conclusion is faulty. No one is pushing or coercing anyone else to enlist in the military. That’s not how the military works. It’s volunteer. And once a person volunteers to serve in the military, they go where they are needed. Disagree with the war all you want, but if you’re going to take the position that any political leader who has not served in the military is a coward for sending the military into conflict, you’re going to have to throw out the vast majority of politicians–including the entire class of current “top tier” presidential candidates–and put American politics in the hands of military veterans just because they are veterans. Not a very smart policy.
And what does Mitt Romney’s family have to do with anything? Now you’re saying that anyone who supports the war effort who is not a veteran is a coward?
It’s obvious where you are coming from, but I hate to tell you, the 60’s are over dude. The “free love and peace” hippie movement is dead, killed by the crazy people in the world who don’t care how much you love the false notion of world peace, they’re going to kill you anyway. No military, no peace. That’s the way it works.
Comment by Ryan — 8/9/2007 @ 12:50 pm
Yes, someone who sends other people off to war without being willing to fight himself is a coward. Yes, someone who supports prolonging the war without going off to fight in in themselves is a coward.
You can’t logically argue against that point, can you, Ryan? You can only say that you wish it weren’t true.
Candidates like Barack Obama were AGAINST the war, so they aren’t about to get thrown out by this criterion, are they? They had the courage to speak their convictions from the start.
Comment by Peregrin Wood — 8/9/2007 @ 1:03 pm
Obama *claims* he was against the war…a convenient position for someone who wasn’t even a politician when the war broke, who is now running for president and trying to appeal to the base of the left, which is notoriously anti-war. I guarantee you, however, that if Obama were to be elected, he would not immediately pull the troops out, as much as he likes to pretend like he would. He knows (I hope) how bad that would be for the entire world.
And it’s not about being “willing” to fight. How do you know they’re not willing to fight? Just because they haven’t enlisted? That’s like saying you’re not willing to donate to charity just because you haven’t signed up to sponsor any charities.
Take me, for example. I think this war was necessary, regardless of your opinion about WMD’s or whatever else. We had the means to depose a ruthless, brutal dictator who had murdered thousands of his own people. With means comes responsibility. I don’t think the war has been waged very well. If it were me in charge, I would have sent way more troops in to begin with rather than waiting 5 years. But the point is, I guess you would have to call me a supporter of the war, a supporter of winning the war, no matter what. I’m not and never have been in the military and I have no immediate plans to enlist. The military doesn’t need me right now (contrary to popular bogus reporting). So, am I unwilling to fight? Not a chance. Currently, the most important fight I am engaged in is actually here at home, between people like you and myself who disagree. If it so happened that the country needed me enough to ask me to fight, I would go without hesitation. So are you calling me a coward? Because, as they say, “them’s fightin’ words.”
Comment by Ryan — 8/9/2007 @ 1:20 pm
Oh, boo, what are you gonna do, Ryan, beat up everybody who disagrees with you? How very good of you. You’re so strong, so courageous to threaten to do so. I can feel your mighty biceps from all the way across the Internet. Can I kiss ‘em?
Yes, “Obama *claims* he was against the war,” because he was against the war. It’s demonstrably true. He was (contrary to what you pulled out of your ass) indeed a politician at the time, an Illinois State Senator. Here is the text of his speech.
Don’t pull shit out of your ass. It’s stinky, and I just deodorized this whole web page this morning. Besides, we know you aren’t stupid. No, you’re a bold, courageous fighter on the home front! Gimme them biceps, I want to kiss ‘em again.
Comment by Jim — 8/9/2007 @ 1:29 pm
Oh, one more thing…if Obama were to be elected, he would be the Commander-in-Chief of the military, having never served in it himself. Does that make him a hypocrite? He may be against this war, but what about future conflicts? Suppose Iran gets nukes and launches them on us or allies. Should he not send in our military simply because he never served?
This argument holds no water.
Comment by Ryan — 8/9/2007 @ 1:29 pm
Oh, so you can see into the future? Really? You can look in a crystal ball and tell me what Barack Obama is going to be doing a year and a half from now? What magical mystical powers you have.
Uh, yes, if someone hasn’t signed up to fight in the war, I think that’s a pretty good sign that they’re not willing to fight in the war… unless they’re in prison or disabled.
Are you in prison or disabled, Ryan, or in some other way incapacitated, and unfit for military service? If not Ryan, then yes, you are a coward.
You promote policies that get other people killed, but you hang back from the fighting yourself. That’s cowardice defined.
You really think that arguing with me online is a front in the war in Iraq? You think I’m an enemy of the United States? You propose that other people get shot at with guns, while you refuse to volunteer to do the same, saying that posting messages on a web site is an equivalent risk?
People who oppose the war and refuse to join the military are doing this country a service through their conscientious opposition to the fighting, trying to protect the soldiers that have been sent to fight. People like you, Ryan, are just afraid.
There’s a big difference.
Haven’t you read the news that the Army IS asking people like you to enlist, Ryan? They’re short on recruiting goals again. What are you waiting for? A knock on your door while you hide under the bed pretending not to be at home?
Comment by Peregrin Wood — 8/9/2007 @ 1:30 pm
Dude, the “them’s fightin’ words” thing was a joke. That’s the problem with you liberals…no sense of humor.
Comment by Ryan — 8/9/2007 @ 1:32 pm
As if I really wanted to kiss your biceps. No, I wanted to suck your cock, you big manly man you.
Go on, now, head on over to some other website and defend frEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEdom in that masculine Mel Gibson way of yours by pulling more shit out of your ass. I’ve got to activate the iRenuzit plugin all over again.
Comment by Jim — 8/9/2007 @ 1:36 pm
MR. RUSSERT: But if you had been a senator at that time, you would have voted not to authorize President Bush to go to war?
STATE SEN. OBAMA: I would have voted not to authorize the president given the facts as I saw them at that time.
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/03/20/94934.aspx
Making stuff up, eh?
You guys are really intelligent. Talk about cowards…you can’t beat me with reason (since you have none) so you resort to childish potty talk. Brilliant.
Comment by Ryan — 8/9/2007 @ 1:42 pm
What are you talking about, Ryan? That’s Barack Obama opposing the war. And, Jim has given a link that proves what you say isn’t true - that Barack Obama opposed the war from the start.
You’re a coward, Ryan. You’re for war - for other people - but you refuse to fight in war yourself. You go hide under the covers instead.
You ought to be ashamed of yourself.
Comment by J. Clifford — 8/9/2007 @ 1:45 pm
I thought you said you just deodorized this site. Looks to me like it’s lousy with morons.
That’s Obama *claiming* he would have opposed the war, were he a senator at the time. A convenient position to take. I guess he was able to see into his crystal ball and be able to know how he would have voted once he had “access to information that [he] did not have.”
Comment by Ryan — 8/9/2007 @ 1:51 pm
A louse isn’t an odor. And morons are larger than lice. Try again, poopy-head.
Comment by Jim — 8/9/2007 @ 1:56 pm
Obama did oppose the war, before the war, based on the information that he had then, as a politician. You’re trying to ignore that, and you’re done even pretending to have an excuse for your cowardice, Ryan, telling other people to go off and fight for you so that you can sleep in your comfy bed.
Comment by J. Clifford — 8/9/2007 @ 1:58 pm
Ok, that was just dumb…but I’ll admit, I got a chuckle out of it. I’m not totally above low-brow humor, if it’s funny.
Comment by Ryan — 8/9/2007 @ 1:59 pm
Ok, let me address it: I’m not a coward. You’ll have to take my word on it since you don’t know me in the least (yet you are quick to pass judgment on me…I thought you liberals were against that kind of thing). Your argument has no merit so you’re just trying to insult me now, in true liberal fashion. It won’t work though. I don’t get offended and you certainly can’t hurt me.
Keep trying all you want though. You’re just putting your intolerance and idiocy on record.
Comment by Ryan — 8/9/2007 @ 2:03 pm
Oh, and who’s ignoring things? You conveniently neglected to answer my question about Obama as commander-in-chief. Does that make him a hypocrite or a coward if he gets elected? He’s never been in the military, yet he will hold the responsibility of sending our troops into combat if it is needed. How do you reconcile that into your little doobie induced world view?
Comment by Ryan — 8/9/2007 @ 2:13 pm
You give absolutely no substantive response.
You push soldiers into war. You support continuing the war, and sending more soldiers into it, even though it is increasingly deadly for them.
Yet, you yourself refuse to sign up in the military to fight in the war. You refuse to go into the battle which you say you support. You hang back and let others do the fighting that you promote.
Then, you ask me to accept your “word” that you aren’t a coward? Sorry, no. Your actions speak louder than your words.
Comment by J. Clifford — 8/9/2007 @ 2:19 pm
Still no answer about Commander Obama.
Comment by Ryan — 8/9/2007 @ 3:16 pm
You know, Ryan, the answer is the it’s job of the Commander In Chief to decide when to wisely NOT use the military as much as it is the job of the Commander in Chief to decide when to fight. Right wingers like yourself seem to have forgotten that.
Just like you, Ryan, have forgotten to enlist in the military.
Why, if you support the war, Ryan, do you refuse to fight in it? Why are you such a coward?
Comment by J. Clifford — 8/9/2007 @ 3:18 pm
Enjoyed your posts Ryan. I find your arguments and logic sound. This is a liberal site (as you probably know), so when they lose the arguments, they debase you (post #8).
According to the liberal logic I’m reading here, the only way to actually support the war is to fight in it. If not, one is a coward.
This fits the classic liberal attitude of agree with me or else your are a ________ (fill in the blank). Coward in this case.
How shallow & narrow minded can they be? I thought it is the liberals who are intellectual & open mined etc..
I guess I need to have some of what they’ve been smoking..
Comment by cwpete — 8/9/2007 @ 3:46 pm
That’s your answer? There’s no answer there except the same double-standard that we find in every aspect of the liberal socio-political philosophy: don’t judge others…except conservatives; defend the defenseless…except inasmuch as that defense is carried out by a Republican president who we hate since he won the 2000 election, in that case those defenseless people are on their own; if you don’t accept my alternative lifestyle you’re an intolerant bigot hate-monger, because only liberals have a right to disagree; and so on.
In this case, you claim that Romney is a hypocrite and a coward for supporting the war but not serving in it himself (or not forcing his kids to serve in it, like Hitler), but when your pseudo-hero Obama is in question, that standard doesn’t apply. You side-step that with some lawyer-ball argument about deciding when NOT to use the military…blah blah. You’re still not answering the question: as commander-in-chief, it would be Obama’s job to send the military into combat in any situation where it is warranted. All other considerations aside, assuming the whole country agrees that it’s time to go to war, would Obama be a hypocrite and a coward for commanding the military into action, having not served in the military himself and not forcing his wife or family into it? If no, then why not? It’s the exact same thing.
Comment by Ryan — 8/9/2007 @ 3:47 pm
Ryan,
They clearly can’t answer your question. By their own standards to which they are applying to Romney here, Obama would have to be unfit as commander in chief to our armed forces since he as never suited up in uniform.
It only goes one way - which is their way. Their hypocrisy is stunning. They apply unreasonable standards to anyone how does not have a “D” by their name.
Comment by cwpete — 8/9/2007 @ 3:57 pm
If you think liberals think nobody should judge anybody else, then you haven’t been hanging around very many actual liberals. If you think irregulartimes.com isn’t judgmental, then you haven’t been reading it. It seems to me that you’re having a conversation within your own head. Everyone has a right to disagree. Conservatives want to turn their opinions into mandates for how everyone has to live their lives.
You made comments about Obama not actually having made comments, and not having been a politician when he claimed to have made them. Your comments were factually wrong.
You got juvenile by threatening to beat up someone. So I shoved macho juvenile in your face. (Joke? No, no, it’s not a joke, unless you think punching someone is funny. Get some style, get a punch line, man.)
You can’t handle it, find another website where people behave more like Alan Colmes.
Comment by Jim — 8/9/2007 @ 4:00 pm
Hooray! Another smart person…finally!
Comment by Ryan — 8/9/2007 @ 4:01 pm
I threatened to beat someone up? When, exactly? Wait…punching someone? What the…did I just slip into another dimension?
Comment by Ryan — 8/9/2007 @ 4:03 pm
No, cwpete, I’m not afraid to answer that question. Barack Obama isn’t of enlistment age. He’s 46. He’ll be 48 in 2009, should he live that long. If he were of enlistment age, and he was all gung-ho for other people to go off to war, and he didn’t enlist, then he WOULD earn my ire. If he had children who were of enlistment age, and he was all gung-ho for other people to go off to war, and he asked them not to enlist, then he WOULD earn my ire. But he isn’t of enlistment age, and doesn’t have children who are of enlistment age, and he wasn’t in support of starting this stupid-ass war, so he doesn’t meet the conditions, so I’m hardly about to give him hell on that point.
You seem to think that we’re Democratic partisans spouting talking points so our Beloved Leaders can get into office. Why don’t you poke around a bit more before you peg us? You’ll find that we gave Clinton bloody hell on military issues back in the ’90s, and you’ll find that we’ve been critical of Democratic candidates on a number of policy fronts.
Comment by Jim — 8/9/2007 @ 4:06 pm
Ryan is doing an excellent job of avoiding an explanation for why he supports the war so long as other people fight it for him, but refuses to go to war himself.
Why, Ryan, are YOU to good to die for this war, but other people are expendable for the war effort?
Comment by J. Clifford — 8/9/2007 @ 4:10 pm
Romney did not say his boys are helping his campaign in place of serving in the military. He pointed out military service is done on a volunteer basis in our nation, and he respects his sons’ decisions not to serve. He went on to say people still can serve their nation in many ways, and he does view his sons service in his campaign as service to the country as well.
While I’m not volunteering for any campaigns, I tend to agree that political involvement does represent a service to our nation, regardless of the party affiliation. You fail to put his sons’ sacrifices in context. These men have walked away from their homes and high paying jobs to volunteer in an effort they believe in strongly.
Furthermore, a _little_ detail many people fail to mention is the fact that 95% +/- of the American public at any given time are not serving in the armed forces. Does this make us 95% not fighting in Iraq or Afghanistan unpatriotic and selfish? Does this make those who choose to serve as LEOs, or to serve in the Peace Corps, or to volunteer as a team sports coach or scoutmaster in their local community any less patriotic or giving to their community and nation.
At best this sort of argument one’s ignorance, and at worst one’s intellectual dishonesty.
Comment by Matt Marshall — 8/9/2007 @ 5:35 pm
You mean, intellectual dishonesty like making arguments nobody else is making and ascribing it to other people?
Nobody is saying what you’re ascribing to others. So the answer is a trivial no.
Comment by Jim — 8/9/2007 @ 5:45 pm
“Does this make us 95% not fighting in Iraq or Afghanistan unpatriotic and selfish?”
No, the unpatriotic and selfish are those who, from that civilian 95 percent, support the war and are fit for military service.
“You fail to put his sons’ sacrifices in context.”
No, I brought up that context myself. Read the article again, please.
Comment by Peregrin Wood — 8/9/2007 @ 5:45 pm
It is a full-blown logical fallacy to argue that if one supports a war, one must first fight in it. That’s called a non-sequitur.
To call someone a coward for not fighting in a war they support is also a logical fallacy, a straw-man.
And you have misstated Romney’s response to the lady who originally asked the question. Romney never equated the way his sons show “support for our nation” with the service rendered to the nation by those in the military. In fact, Romney’s choice of words demonstrates that he was NOT comparing them at all, but rather he was using the context of the question to illustrate how it is possible to serve your country in a myriad of ways. To make my point more certain, try turning around how Mitt described his sons and apply it to the military. Does it make sense to say that those fighting in the military are simply “showing their support for our nation?”
So far, you libs have employed logical fallacies, misstatements, misquotes, ridicule, denigration, insults and profanity to try to establish your point. Is it any wonder there is a dearth of excellent debate in this country?
Comment by Trenton — 8/9/2007 @ 9:19 pm
How is it a logical fallacy. Where is the logical fallacy? You can’t just SAY that there is one, you have to explain where it is. That’s how logic works. It’s not mere assertion.
I say that for someone to say that a war is worth fighting, but they don’t want to fight it themselves, there’s something about fighting in war that they’re afraid of. That’s cowardice. I say that it’s a fear-based claim to say that people should fight and kill and die in a war, that the war is that important, but that as for themselves fighting, the war is not that important, is hypocrisy. Hypocrisy is the establishment of two different standards for oneself and for others.
You’re not making a logical argument, Trenton. You’re just making a collection of assertions, so please stop pretending that you’re being logical.
Oh, and Trenton, are YOU of military age? If you support the war, why aren’t you fighting in it? Are you chicken too?
Comment by Peregrin Wood — 8/9/2007 @ 9:30 pm
Oh, but Peregrin, he says “dearth,” so he must be right. But, hey, I just said “dearth,” too! Now I’ve said it twice, so I must be twice as right as he is.
It’s only a non-sequitur if there’s nothing of substance between the two statements, Trenton, and there’s a lot of argument to be made between the two statements. Not specifying where the problem is, that’s what the Romans called a “dumb ass argument.”
Comment by Jim — 8/9/2007 @ 9:40 pm
You still have not answered the question: would President Obama be a hypocrite and a coward for sending troops into battle? You’re ducking this question because it reveals your double-standard. So either answer it or concede defeat in this debate.
Comment by Ryan — 8/10/2007 @ 2:14 am
Yes, the question was answered, and you’re just being an obnoxious twit as well as a coward. Do be quiet, unless you have something original to offer. There’s nothing worse than a repetitive obnoxious twit who is as cowardly as you.
Comment by Horatio — 8/10/2007 @ 7:01 am
I think by “not answered” Ryan means he did not get the answer he wanted.
Comment by Jim — 8/10/2007 @ 7:39 am
It seems like there are two separate questions here. One is whether someone without military background can be an effective commander in chief. We have the examples of Eisenhower, who was well known as a general but mediocre as a president. And Clinton whose family was infuential enough to keep him out of the draft, and who led the country well, even if he couldn’t keep his pants zipped, and kept us out of war as well. Clearly the skills that make for a good military leader don’t necessarily carry over into political life.
Thirty years ago no one would have been able to get elected without doing their military service during wartime. Then we had Dan Quayle running for vice, who had an influential enough family to keep him out of the draft by getting him into national guard. Now we have a new generation of Republicans trying to purify national guard duty by using the national guard for international military action and the army for national emergencies. And using other people’s children to defend what is not a national interest, but a corporate interest. Don’t forget, Bush is an oil guy, Cheney is a Halliburton guy.
This is the second question, about why some people think they are “too good” to be patriotic enough to send their own children into this conflict if they think it is so important. In my family, the saying has always been, “when your country calls, you go.” In the Bush/Cheney/Clinton/Romney world, when your country calls, you go hide behind your wealth and privilege. In that case they should also protect everyone else’s sons and daughters, and not demand their blood to protect the wealth of a few.
Everyone is using the example of Obama in Iraq, which is a conflict he did not support. Instead try the example of finding actionable intelligence about bin Laden, which Obama says he would use to take him out unilaterally. Every single Republican candidate in the Iowa debate said they would NOT use actionable intelligence to take out bin Laden if they knew where he was.
Why are the Republicans so all fired up about staying in Iraq, which we found out has no weapons of mass destruction after all, and NOT GO AFTER BIN LADEN in Pakistan???? If we are really fighting a war against terrorism, as Bush keeps telling us, why are the Republicans afraid to fight it to win??????
Comment by Iroquois — 8/10/2007 @ 9:25 am
It’s a yes or no question, and you have not answered it. If elected president, would Obama be in the same cowardly class as Romney? Yes or no.
Comment by Ryan — 8/10/2007 @ 11:19 am
What on earth are you talking about, Ryan? Are you trying to compare policies or something? Are you trying to predict the future with a crystal ball? Maybe you can rephrase whatever it is you’re trying to make a point about. I don’t understand what your point is at all.
And WHY WON’T THE REPUBLICANS GO AFTER BEN LADEN? Do we not have a War On Terror?
Comment by Iroquois — 8/10/2007 @ 12:36 pm
Bin Laden’s in Pakistan. Smart people recognize that we can’t invade Pakistan, an ally, to satisfy a personal, emotional grudge against one guy. Bin Laden has been effectively neutralized, which for the moment is good enough. He’s impotent. He may as well be dead. So you want to disrupt our status with Pakistan in order to go kill this one impotent guy? Brilliant.
Now, I’ll ask this question one more time. It’s very simple: if Obama is elected president, and he finds himself as commander-in-chief in a position where military action is called for in some part of the world, would his decision to send our military into action make him a coward and a hypocrite? Remember, he has not served in the military himself, and he has not coerced or influenced any of his family to serve in the military.
In that situation, is Obama a coward, yes or no?
Comment by Ryan — 8/10/2007 @ 2:25 pm
“If a chicken and a half can lay an egg and a half in a day and a half, how long will it take for a monkey with a peg leg to kick all the seeds out of a dill pickle?â€
Either make your point or ask me something real.
If bin Laden is so neutralized, what were we doing in Iraq, what were we doing in Afghanistan? Why are we still there? Is the Taliban is so nonexistent that so many non-existent people are dying every day in nonexistent Baghdad from non-existent car bombs? Why do they call it “al Qaeda in Iraq”?
Do you know what they use for a screen saver over there? They’ve got a picture of bin Laden with his gun leaning up against the side of the tent and bin Laden has an angelic smile. Now tell me again how he may as well be dead because he thumbed his nose and killed thousands in new York and he completely got away with it and everyone’s got his smile on their screen saver because he’s the big hero. Now tell me again how Pakistan is our big ally because they can’t find their asses with two hands and they can’t find where bin Laden is hiding. We kicked the shit out of Afghanistan because they harbored bin Laden and wouldn’t turn him over. So why do we let Pakistan hide him. WHY ARE THE REPUBLICANS PROTECTING BIN LADEN?????
Comment by Iroquois — 8/10/2007 @ 3:42 pm
I answered your question, Ryan. Comment #26. I didn’t give you the answer you wanted, but I answered it. Can’t deal with it? Go whine to your auntie.
Comment by Jim — 8/10/2007 @ 3:59 pm
Comment #26 did not answer the question. It’s totally irrelevant whether or not Obama is of enlistment age or whether he has kids that are of enlistment age. The point is that if he is elected as president and commander-in-chief, he will be responsible for leading the military without having had any military experience himself. If he should have to send the troops into war for whatever reason, he will do so as a non-veteran commander-in-chief. Therefore, according your bogus reasoning, he would be a hypocrite and a coward, sending other people’s children off to war when he himself has never served and has never made his family serve. I just want you to say it explicitly: you would not call him a coward under those circumstances. The standard only applies to conservatives and Republicans. Democrat liberals have a totally different standard for you. Just admit it and we’ll call it settled.
Now, as for Bin Laden, we went into Afghanistan immediately following 9/11 because that’s where Bin Laden was. You may not understand this, but Afghanistan is right next to Pakistan. You might say they “share a border” as geographers would say (oh…”geographer” is a big word, sorry. That means “a person who knows where countries and stuff are”). Therefore, anyone can enter into Pakistan fairly easily from Afghanistan. Afghanistan was mostly under Taliban rule until we showed up and booted them out with the blessing of the majority of the Afghan people. Pakistan is an ally with a tenuous hold on stability at best, perpetually on the verge of falling into Islamo-fascist rule. So you think it would be a good idea for us to go ahead and invade our ally and disrupt that sensitive situation and pave the way for radical islamists to get their hands on Pakistan’s nuclear weapons? You must be a really smart guy. Or maybe we should just invade Pakistan altogether and take up occupation there. You think that would be a good step in American foreign policy? Wait…I thought you wanted to bring the troops home.
So, which is it? Continue to take a necessary fight to a far less sensitive theater in the middle-east, which draws terrorists to that area so we can kill them, or invade Pakistan and risk destabilizing that country to the detriment of the entire world, so we can kill one guy who has no capability of doing anything more damaging to American or the world than hobbing around in caves? Or bonus option three: bring all the troops home and place our trust in the good will of radical islam to just go in peace?
You guys are, by far, the dumbest I have ever talked to. Double-standards, double-talk, pot-hazed world view, hypocritical, and yes, your favorite: cowards. It took you nearly 40 comments to even come close to trying to answer a simple yes or no question.
Debate is over. I win.
Comment by Ryan — 8/10/2007 @ 4:40 pm
Nobody wins with you unless they agree with you. So, by that standard, I suppose we did lose the debate. What did you win?
Comment by Jim — 8/10/2007 @ 5:31 pm
I won because I got exactly what I wanted out of you. I got you on record proving my point about liberals. I knew from the beginning I would never change your mind because liberals are so “enlightened” and so far above the rest of us that they can’t possibly be wrong. In fact, liberals don’t believe in right or wrong. They only believe in things according their own “enlightenment”. If you had presented a sound argument, I would have at least given you credit for that, even if I didn’t agree. But you couldn’t even do that much. You’re just ranting and gnashing your teeth on a completely anti-conservative platform (as opposed to a pro-anything platform). So you lose because you got nothing out of this exchange, while I got exactly what I was after. Proof. Well, more proof.
Now, a few parting thoughts:
Am I a hypocrite if I believe in law enforcement, since I’m not a cop?
Is Steve Ballmer a hypocrite as the CEO of Microsoft who has never written a line of program code in his life?
Is Clive Davis a hypocrite for producing Grammy-winning records while not being a musician himself?
Is the owner of a welding company a coward when he sends his expert under-water welders into a dangerous job having never done any under-water welding himself (or herself, if you prefer)?
Is Spielberg a hypocrite for directing movies without having ever acted himself?
Come on, dudes. You lost hard in this one.
Comment by Ryan — 8/10/2007 @ 6:05 pm
No, people don’t agree with your analogies. They’ve explained why. But boy, you sure did win. Win, win, win.
Comment by Jim — 8/10/2007 @ 7:07 pm
I don’t see any hypocrisy or double standards here. Where? Which post? It looks like Jim did answer the question back in post #26.
The writers here are certainly very rough on anyone who is not anti-war and they have also been rough on Obama in the past, so that sounds about right to me.
Is Ryan so all fired up about his win!-win!-win! thing he didn’t even read the answer? And how did he come to his conclusion about the “pot-hazed world view” thing. How does he claim to know so much about pot?
It sounds like Ryan supports the war, but not for himself, only for other people. Is that right? Isn’t that sort of a double standard?
Comment by Iroquois — 8/10/2007 @ 7:42 pm
Ryan still won’t explain why he’s being such a coward, insulting the troops as he has.
Ryan still won’t accept that his question was answered, just not in a way that makes him feel happy.
I think all reasonable people can conclude that Ryan has completely lost this debate a long time ago, and is just hanging on ranting and raving trying to distract from that fact.
Comment by Horatio — 8/10/2007 @ 7:58 pm
Holy crap you people are dense. Some things are not subject to agreement. They just are, regardless of your denial of them.
I asked you whether you would call Obama a coward and a hypocrite if he were to win the presidency, being commander-in-chief of a military in which he has never served. You ducked that question with impossible scenarios about “if he were of enlistment age,” or “if he had children of enlistment age,” neither of which will ever happen. They are irrelevant and only intended to cloud the water. The possibility, however, of Obama being elected president is very real (well, not very realistic, but for the sake of argument…) and so it is very relevant. If you have things your way (apparently), Obama will be president and will be commander-in-chief. He will then be responsible for sending troops into battle, if the need arises. Wouldn’t that make him a coward and a hypocrite by your reckoning?
Yes or no?
Oh, also by your own reckoning, you are cowards since you allow the police to protect your rights and safety, but you’re not signing up to join the police. WHY ARE LIBERALS SUCH COWARDS?
(keep it coming…I can go on forever)
Comment by Ryan — 8/10/2007 @ 8:46 pm
Why are they irrelevant? Because you say so? That’s no standard for argument.
Comment by Jim — 8/10/2007 @ 8:49 pm
The police officer analogy is the first reasonable point I’ve seen you make (although you’re making an assumption in it).
In response, please back up your analogy by reporting me the death rate for U.S. soldiers in Iraq versus the death rate for police officers in the United States. That will let me know whether the analogy works.
Comment by Jim — 8/10/2007 @ 8:54 pm
No…as I said, they are irrelevant because they are impossible scenarios. They can never actually happen in the real world. Obama as president, however, is possible, therefore must be considered and given the same standard that you give to Romney in this regard. Otherwise, it is (say it together) a double standard.
Comment by Ryan — 8/10/2007 @ 8:55 pm
Wow…I’m a little bit speechless, Jim. You actually conceded something. (not really, I’m never speechless, as you can tell.)
The death rate has nothing to do with it. Of course it’s much worse in actual combat zones than in domestic law enforcement. No one is questioning or marginalizing that. It’s the principle. You can’t just call someone a coward just because they support the war but aren’t in the military, just like you can’t call someone a coward who accepts police protection, but doesn’t join the police force. It’s the same thing.
Incidentally, Jim, this is the point I’ve been making all along, you’ve just been ignoring that.
Comment by Ryan — 8/10/2007 @ 8:59 pm
In fact, now that I think about it, given that the death rate is presumably much lower for local police–which would make that job much less dangerous–wouldn’t that make someone who doesn’t join the police force even more of a coward?
Comment by Ryan — 8/10/2007 @ 9:01 pm
Yes, they are impossible scenarios, they can never actually happen in the real world, which is why your Obama jag is inappropriate.
Being a police officer is the same thing as being in a war zone. Right. No, wrong, actually, because it’s not, see. It’s different.
Then in the next comment you move from your point of “all along” saying the two were the same to suddenly realizing they’re different, and you go with that new opposite standard, then. Why? Because it leads to the conclusion you like, so you can “win.” Kind of like when you started out claiming that Barack Obama had never actually been against the war, until I pointed out that it was documented he was, and when you said he wasn’t a politician at the time anyway, and then I showed he was — you just kept right on chugging, changing your argument. Charming. No, not, actually, not charming at all.
Win, win, win! That’s what matters, right Ryan?
Comment by Jim — 8/10/2007 @ 9:38 pm
boy, where to being…
My Obama “jag” is not inappropriate. It’s well reasoned and correct. It’s only inappropriate to try to justify your giving him a pass by pointing to impossible scenarios.
You’re still dodging. I never said the being a police officer and being in a war zone were the same. I said the principle is the same. It is. The danger is not the same (agreed), but the principle is the same. Both are services to the country. Both require occasional life risk (live combat obviously more frequently). The point is the same. You’re being disingenuous by trying to redirect the focus onto the comparison of the danger rather than the principle.
Misrepresentations galore. I did not claim that Barack “had never actually been against the war.” I said that he conveniently *claimed* to have been against the war. I did say he was not a politician at the time, and on that point I concede. He was a politician, but was not a US Senator. He famously *claimed* that he would not have voted for the war if he had been in the US Senate at the time, which he was not. That is, however, beside the point. Belaboring it is just another lawyer-ball tactic to place misdirected importance on an irrelevant issue. It’s not really about whether or not he was a politician, or even whether or not he was against the war. The truth is that he doesn’t even know how he would have voted, given “access to the information that [he] did not have.” So it’s very convenient for him to claim that he would not have voted for the war. Maybe that’s true, maybe it’s not. It’s all beside the point. If he were to win the presidency he would be in exactly the same situation for which you are branding Romney a coward and a hypocrite. A point that you still have not addressed.
My argument hasn’t changed since the beginning of this thread. It’s on the record.
Yes. Win. That is what matters. Both in the current war in Iraq and in this debate which is symptomatic of a broader debate taking place right here in the homeland. It’s perhaps the most important debate in history and you can be sure that I’m not going to walk away from my little fields of battle until I’ve won or been proven wrong. I’ll admit when I’m wrong. So far, other than a semantic issue about whether or not Barack was a politician (i.e. irrelevant), I haven’t been proven wrong.
You want to keep going? I’ve got plenty more for you.
Comment by Ryan — 8/10/2007 @ 10:35 pm
Ok, I’ll clarify a little further: Obama conveniently *claimed* that he would have voted against the war. I won’t argue whether he was actually against the war. It’s a convenient claim, though, considering that he did not have all the information that the Senate had. I’m skeptical that he would have been so cavalier as to go against the entire Senate in his vote, but that’s something that no one, even Obama himself, will ever know.
Comment by Ryan — 8/10/2007 @ 10:40 pm
I do think it’s important whether Obama was a politician. Get the facts right. Obama was a politician. He has paid his dues.
Obama did much more than “conveniently claim” to be against the war. He was a key speaker at an anti-war rally in downtown Chicago in 2002. You should follow the link and read the speech. http://paulenglish.com/2007/03/barack-obama-speech-from-26-october.html
Why does Ryan think Obama would have “followed the Senate” in his vote? The senate doesn’t elect politicians–the voters do. He would have represented his district–which is very supportive of his anti-war stance.
Ryan must be from Texas or something that he thinks everyone else should be all gung ho about Iraq. Believe me, the south side of Chicago doesn’t think any war that’s cooked up in Washington is going to benefit them. They’re just the ones who are going to be expected to do all the dying.
Comment by illinois — 8/11/2007 @ 1:15 am
Oh…poor little south-side ghetto child of disadvantage. Spare me.
What does paying dues have to do with anything? I read the speech, and to me it read like a very carefully considered protest, not against the war, but against President Bush, playing to the liberal base everywhere. Obama is definitely a clever opportunist and that was about as perfect an opportunity as he could have hopef for to up-shoot his popularity among his base, by striking out, not specifically against the war, but specifically against Pres. Bush. It was very cleverly (and carefully) worded to indict the Bush Administration without being specifically anti-war. It was brilliant in its evasiveness, actually. And, as history has now proven, it worked exactly as planned. His popularity among his base has sky-rocketed, not on political merit, but by beating the most cherished of all liberal drum-beats: hate Bush. All of this anti-war b.s. you guys are spouting has nothing to do with being anti-war, and it has no foundation in concern for American troops (it’s actually the most heinous insult that you would couch your anti-Bush ranting in some kind of mock concern for their well-being). This is all about one thing: an eight year long temper tantrum that you have been sustaining since Bush beat Gore in 2000. That’s all.
All that aside, however, Obama being a politician or not, or being anti-war or not, or whether he would have voted for the war or not, is still beside the point. The point is your double-standard, which you won’t address, even though time and again I have asked you to directly answer a simple question. After nearly 60 comments and much back and forth, you still won’t answer the question. You know you’re caught in your own disingenousness, but rather than just copping to it like men and standing on some semblance of true conviction, you dodge, change the subject, and place false emphasis on irrelevant points. So, in other words, you are GREAT liberals…right in line with standard liberal procedure.
And nope…not Texas. Not even close.
Comment by Ryan — 8/11/2007 @ 1:37 pm
Ryan, when are you going to explain why you’re such a coward that you ask other people to fight a war for you, but run away and hide under your bed and refuse to enlist in the military yourself?
You’re so irrational that you claim that Irregular Times writes anti-war material but isn’t anti-war.
Why don’t you just decide:
1. Be for the war, and go help fight it yourself.
2. Stand against the war.
Don’t be a wishy-washy flip flopper trying to have it both ways, Ryan.
Comment by Horatio — 8/11/2007 @ 2:31 pm
Oh, Horatio, don’t waste your time with Ryan. He’s just shown, yet again, that he has as many problems with the facts as he does with logic. “I’m skeptical that he would have been so cavalier as to go against the entire Senate in his vote…”. Of course, in the reality-based community, we can check the actual roll call vote of the Senate in 2002 and find that, if Barack Obama had voted NO, he would not have been going “against the entire Senate in his vote.” The following are Senators who voted against the war authorization:
Senator Daniel Akaka
Senator Jeff Bingaman
Senator Barbara Boxer
Senator Robert Byrd
Senator Lincoln Chafee
Senator Kent Conrad
Senator John Corzine
Senator Mark Dayton
Senator Richard Durbin
Senator Bob Graham
Senator Russell Feingold
Senator Daniel Inouye
Senator Jim Jeffords
Senator Edward Kennedy
Senator Patrick Leahy
Senator Carl Levin
Senator Barbara Mikulski
Senator Patty Murray
Senator Jack Reed
Senator Paul Sarbanes
Senator Debbie Stabenow
Senator Paul Wellstone
Senator Ron Wyden
Ryan just isn’t in touch with reality, Horatio. You’re wasting your time.
Comment by Jim — 8/11/2007 @ 2:45 pm
See? You keep making my point for me. You don’t actually address the real issue, you just try to redirect accusations as me. Talk about cowards…can’t even answer a simple question.
I guess we’ll have to go over this again, Horatio, since your feeble brain can’t seem to get it. You, by your own reckoning, are a coward too, because you accept the protection of police, but you are not a police officer. Why are you such a coward? The police protect you every day, right here in the USA. You would’t even have to leave the country or suffer the same level or life risk by joining the police force. WHY ARE YOU SUCH A COWARD THAT YOU HAVE TO HAVE OTHER PEOPLE ENFORCE THE LAWS TO PROTECT YOU WHEN YOU WON’T EVEN JOIN THE POLICE AND ENFORCE THE LAW YOURSELF?
Soldiers are brave people, to be sure. They have chosen their military life voluntarily. It’s not a life that I have chosen, and I wouldn’t have chosen in whether we were at war or not. So far, not a single recruiter of any service has contacted me to enlist. They obviously don’t need me that bad. There are plenty of brave people who have chosen to serve. That leaves it to your assumption and speculation to decide whether or not I am a coward, but just apply that same judgment to yourself and I’ll go away. Call yourself a coward for not being a police officer and I’ll call myself a coward for not joining the military.
And you’re STILL avoiding the point, still playing your little liberal lawyer-ball games, placing false emphasis on irrelevant points. Of course I knew the that not the entire Senate voted for the war. I was exaggerating to make a point. A handful of Senators voted against the war. Maybe Obama would have been one, maybe not. No one knows. It’s irrelevant. Yet you have avoided the real issue for yet another comment…the count is really growing, and you still can’t just address the issue of your own double-standard.
And you say I’m not in touch with reality. That’s a good one.
Comment by Ryan — 8/11/2007 @ 3:41 pm
I’ve answered your question and you’ve made at least three glaring factual errors. You’re done, fella. I’m moving on to better things.
Comment by Jim — 8/11/2007 @ 3:54 pm
Run, coward.
I win.
Comment by Ryan — 8/11/2007 @ 4:00 pm