Since you’ve left more than (I think its) three comments in the last 24 hours, my spam blocker thinks your posts are on a par with on-line poker or sex sites.

Sorry ’bout that…

My example is not fallacious.

As I say, I don’t necessarily disagree with your position that people should put their bodies where their mouths are. But that is simply an opinion, not an argument. You have just shown why: Many people cannot serve for various reasons. Yet they are still entitled to support the war. If you choose not to march in the streets blowing a dog whistle and wearing a “No Blood for Oil!” T-shirt are you are a “chicken-dove”?

IMO, you would do well to expunge that “chickenhawk” word from your vocabulary. (It’s also a poor simile: A chicken hawk is a ferocious bird that eats mammals for breakfast.)

As for not everyone being cut out for military duty, that’s what everything from the AFSVAB to Basic Training are for, to find out who is fit.

Not going to war may not invalidate your beiefs, but as recruiters struggle to fill the ranks, those who believe in Bush and his choice of how to pursue the GWOT leave otehrs to do the fighting pure and simple.

If you are 18-37 and beieve in the war you are needed now. Let the services determine if you have the grit and skill to fight.

I served my time in the military. The only grudge I have is against conservatives of the world who believe very strongly about wars they don’t sign up to fight.

The OP was about our national will, I am making the case that the current damage is in large part self-inflicted.

If you believe in this war, in the manner in which it is being fought then go fight it or if you are too old, then send your kids.

What does “fantasy in science class” have to do with the price of onions?

You obviously have a beef with the current leaders of the military. Maybe you are justified in your criticism. But the previous administrations had a whole lot more to do with the fact that we rely upon a reserve-based military than the current one has.

I think Rick answered your posts very well, and you responded by going off and chewing up 75% of the pixels on this thread. Maybe that makes you feel better, but it doesn’t make your arguments, if that’s what you call them, any stronger.

Frankly, however, you sound more like a man with a personal grudge. Ever hear of Bill Burkett?

As for losing the war on terror. All we have to do is continue to drive mid-career NCO’s and officers out of the military and decimate the reserve force with two and three tours of duty in Iraq and Afghanistan.

And do you think we are in any way equipped to take care of 10,000+ disabled veterans? Especially reservists who are not given the same level of service at the VA as former active duty?

Last just when are we going to replenish the strategic stockpiles of weapons we are grinding into the dirt in Iraq?

When 85% of attendees at the Democratic convention opposed the Iraq War and 45% opposed the war in Afghanistan, can you argue that the “left” as represented by the Democratic party is “hard headed” or not ninnies?

There are plenty of Democrats - moderates and liberals - who support the war on terror. My beef is with the moonbat left, the ones who think Karl Rove controls everything and George Bush is a robot. Or who think that Bush was behind 9/11 or that we’re trying to steal Iraqi oil and that’s the only reason we’re there.

We already are a global empire - we’ve been once since 1945. It can’t be helped. Our military, only the 14th largest in the world, is by far and away the best in the world, better than any two armies. We have a $9 trillion economy. All of western europe AND Japan are not as large. American culture is dominating the planet as people gobble up American films, American music, and American styles. English is the language of international diplomacy, of international business, of science and technology.

In short, unless you’re willing to shrink our economy, emasculate the military, and ban the export of American culture, then you will have an American empire. So the question isn’t getting one - the question is what do with it now that we have it.

My point in the article was simple. We could lose the war on terror very easily. We could lose it by giving up. The surrender would be couched in soothing language, much like Kerry’s bromides during the latter part of the campaign…”Let the UN do it”…Get the europeans involved”…”Give a timetable for withdrawal”…etc.

This will sell a lot better in “08 as we will have drawn down our troops substantially and Iraq will hopefully not be an issue. It will be close - just as it was in ‘04 - but there could be enough switches to give the election to the Democrats on the basis of not being too agressive in going after al Qaeda. You underestimate how that might play and I think you overestimate the resolve of the American people in the matter. Only another 9/11 size attack would bring most of us back to our senses.

What soldier in his right mind is going to stick around to get stop-lossed out of a justly earned retirement or transfer? The reserve troops especially are seeing their businesses fail and lives disrupted only to find out they are second class citizens when it comes to health care & benefits compared to active military.

Republican representatives and senators aren’t going to listen to me because it wil never get cold enough in hell for me to vote for them. So it is up to Republicans in good standing to demand this pie in the sky appraoch to warfighting stop.