Re: Interesting Interview

On 29 Dec 2005 21:58:06 -0800, hawat.thufir@xxxxxxxxx wrote:

>LDillman@xxxxxx wrote:
>..
>> >> (meaningless child-like comments removed)
>..
>> >The part you snipped is the part where I imply that you're a chickenhawk,
>> >with nice graphic to go with the words.
>>
>> The link you provided was just a cartoon that had exactly the same
>> words as you typed into your comments. I saw no need for the
>> duplication, so I indeed "snipped" it. BTW, it wasn't "nice". It was a
>> childish attempted to show disdain for a group of people you no almost
>> nothing about. It was quite bigoted in it's meaning and intent. I can
>> only hope that this is not what you base your opinions on.
>
>While the "child-like comments" you snipped (of course you can snip
>what you like) weren't nice, the do serve a rhetorical purpose.

The term "Chickenhawk" is defined as:
"Chickenhawk is an epithet used in United States politics to criticize
a politician, bureaucrat, or commentator who votes for war, supports
war, commands a war, or develops war policy, but has not personally
served in the military."

> While
>I know nothing about you personally, yes, there are people out there
>who fit that chickenhawk profile and yes, I say that you're included.

So, with no substantiating evidence, you claim to know if I served in
the military or not? Are you a Psychic?

>Yes, most anyone who supports this conflict but declines to volunteer
>is a chickenhawk in my view. I'm sure you find that offensive, you're
>free to correct me and explain why you're not a chickenhawk, and, if
>convinced, I'll withdraw it. However, many are chickenhawks (starting
>at the top with Bush).

Are you in favor of Ecology? If so, exactly what service do you belong
to that is exclusively involved with the protection of the ecology?
None? Does that then make you a Ecological Chickenhawk? Parallels such
as this can be drawn forever. Quit trying to lump people into
inappropriate groups.

Why is it that you feel you have to name call? It serves no purpose
other than to incite anger.

Let me give you a little of my background; I won't make this too
personal, because I really don't want my ID spread all over the net.

I was born in October of 1932. That places me in an age group that the
military would use only in desperation. I'm a retired U.S. Army
Military Policeman. I've served in both Korea, Vietnam and Berlin.
This of course doesn't include many years of Stateside duty and
several other short conflicts which I won't tell you about.

Your use of the term "Chickenhawk" in reference to me is nothing but a
stab in the dark. You've attempted to smear my intentions prior to
knowing anything about me. Do you name call everyone whose opinion is
different than yours? I have a feeling that this is the case, based on
your actions so far.

Now, you have two choices. You can either withdraw your slander with
an apology for having used it inappropriately, or you may join others
in my filtered "Ignore this ***" category. I'm not calling you an
***, I'm giving you the chance to show that you are not one.

In some ways, you seem to have a good head on your shoulders and I
fail to see why one of your caliber must resort to name calling in
this arena. I would enjoy debating with you, and learning why it is
that you feel as you do, but I simply won't put up with the name
calling thing. Time is too valuable to waste with garbage such as
that.

>> >Has it been established that
>> >morale (you wrote moral, I guess you meant morale) is high by an
>> >independant source?
>>
>> "Independent source" could mean a lot of things to a lot of people.
>
>Err, someone with out an axe to grind would be the general
>interpretation. We could always refer to the dictionary. You're free
>to make a case that the DOD is an independant source if you like.
>
>> If the morale is said to be high from a person who is a member of the
>> armed forces in Iraq, who is stating his opinion without any pressure
>> or coercion, I'm guessing that you wouldn't accept that as proof
>> because it disagrees with your ideas and preconceived notions.
>
>I'm not doubting his word, but he hasn't established his credentials
>and identity. It's just his word and his perceptions, which could be
>colored by his views, and it's not a representative sample, there's no
>way corroborate, etc. Need I go on? I really don't know what the
>morale of soldiers in Iraq is, I *hope* that it's high.

The morale in the armed forces in regard to the Iraq conflict, is
high. As my last duty, I commanded a very elite force of men and women
that were hand picked from the entire armed forces of the USA. No, I
won't get specific for the obvious reasons. My relationship to this
group and the actions we were involved in required that I stay in
touch with a great many of them over the years. Quite a few of them
are currently serving in Iraq. I have personal contact with them on a
weekly basis and they have told me what the real situation in Iraq is.
Keep this in mind when you challenge me on the status of the forces in
Iraq.

>
>> This is why the arguments of the left sound so desperate. Nothing is
>> accepted as proof of anything unless it's said by a leftist.
>
>Heh, not at all. For instance, if you cite the WSJ that'd cut alot of
>ice with me. If you cite the WSJ citing the DOD, not so much, because
>the DOD isn't independant. As far as believable sources go, let me add
>that had the Army came out and denied the Abu Ghraib photos I would've
>thought those photos were fakes. In general, yes, I personally accept
>what the military has to say at face value, but that was never the
>question.

Good. Then you'll understand that what I say about Iraq is personal
knowledge. I trust my sources implicitly. They are well educated and
extremely well trained in a wide spectrum of duties. If they tell me
that they have witnessed a high morale from our troops in Iraq, then I
believe them.

>> Here is the news from the front. Right now, from a person who has been
>> there. I spoke with a number of other soldiers last night who echoed
>> the same, exact sentiments and opinions.
>..
>
>Ah, you spoke with, he spoke with, that's fantastic, but hardly a
>scientific sampling.

I've had a lifetime of learning behind me. When I see a duck, hear it
quack and watch it waddle over to me to take a piece of bread from my
hand in it's bill, then I've learned that I'm probably dealing with a
duck.

Don't try to evade by splitting hairs. It makes your argument look
weak.

> For instance, is it reproducable?

Many, many times. In fact, as many times as I would wish to sample it.

>What was your
>sample? Did you ask leading questions? Etc. Even tone of voice, body
>language, etc might change the response you get and you might not be
>aware of soliciting specific responses, or do it subconciously.

My sample was from living, breathing people who have first hand
knowledge of what I'm asking them about. After all of these years, I
certainly know how to ask a question properly and I know body language
well enough to understand what has become obvious to me from decades
of experience. You sound like you think you're the first person in the
world to know of sampling techniques. You're not. It's widely known.

>The challenge was to provide an *independant* source, the DOD doesn't
>fit that bill. The WSJ, in my opinion, would; so would the NYT.

I don't think you'll believe anything that disagrees with your
outlook. You sound like you make everything fit your own opinions.

Both the WSJ and the NYT editors answer to their publishers. If you
haven't noticed, their news is highly biased. The fact that their bias
leans towards your opinions is what makes them "independent" in your
view. They are no more "independent" than any other news source.

I do however, trust human contact with those who are in the midst of
the action and high enough in the chain of command to see the overall
picture of events.

This is my source. Can you match it?

Make one of the two choices I've outlined. My finger is on my filters.

.