Clever argument. Think of all the people you just liberated from the chicken hawk attack.

No I considered that. You would have to be aware that you were at risk However, if George Bush knowingly and in seriousness was willing to put his own life at risk for Iraq, then more props to him, in this particular situation. But he really was very clueless.

It’s not a quest – it’s a bad habit that’s increasingly difficult to avoid. (see?) In any case, your argument overreaches – my argument was not against the use of force but against the disconnect between the risk at which you place yourself and the actions you advocate in the world (presumably with all risk to go to others). attempting to remove that disconnect to the extent you’re able to given the limits any individual faces would ensure greater accountability in policy measures, which an astute student of neoclassical ecoomics would surely understand through the basic concepts of incentives and externalities.

Moreover, this, like most of my arguments that you misinterpret, was not meant to be understood in black and white terms – there are greater and lesser miscreants in the world and greater and lesser examples of irresponsibility (for example, the post we’re discussing vs. your commentary about it). It’s not that hard, assuming (usually erroneously) that you try.

IMHO, Somewhere between hysterical polemics and over the top hyperbole.

Oh you mean like a post implying that the Times is somehow amiss in providing solid evidence of the presence of a U.S. base in Pakistan (guess what – actually newsworthy) because it somehow provides intel to combatants against the U.S. that they couldn’t otherwise acquire because without UK newspapers, they are lost for local intelligence. While you refer to the U.S. army and its supporters in language that evokes the WWII struggle against Naziism.

How very clever you are. Surely a noted logician and postmodernist such as yourself would have noted that the jingoism of Vinod’s argument is belied by his actions. Taken together in conjunction with the argument, it serves not to mock the poster but to illustrate the role of social position in the formation of the range of views, and the judgement is rendered within that spectrum (of which I am a part).

It is there for your consideration, though I’ll grant you the charge of being too aggro was a fair one.

After all, warmongering has liberated us from slavery, fascism, and communism…so cowards like us really should be more grateful.

You need to read up on your history or check your definition of “warmongering.” Also, when were you subjected to slavery, fascism, or communism (see point above about position of subject).

would note though that Obama has actually demonstrated a willingness to put his own life at risk for something he believes in while doing so (see assassination attempts on every president- stir in race, xenophobia, economic turmoil, fracturing of Republican Party and profoundly f@#ked up geopolitical situation).

Clever argument. Think of all the people you just liberated from the chicken hawk attack.

That Vinod is lean and handsome and has great teeth like Dear Leader.

Both Vinod and Obama are both guilty of warmongering against Afghanistan and Pakistan and that’s f@#ked up…and?

Yeah that too, but you say it like its such a bad thing. After all, warmongering has liberated us from slavery, fascism, and communism…so cowards like us really should be more grateful.

But in all seriousness, I have great respect for your “chicken hawk” argument. I know its a form of ad hominem but that’s not necessarily a bad thing in my book. Its such a cutting argument, emasculating even. The problem is, and this was the point of linking to a Obama pic, is your net is cast too wide. You sunk Obama and (unless you are a pure pacifist) arguably yourself among many others, in your quest to insult Vinod.

So your ad hominem attack ran up against another classic ad hominem attack that i don’t necessarily minimize either: the tu quoque. But in your case the 2 ad hominems cancel each other out, don’t they? so we’re even.

Where does “undermining basic tenets of democracy by accusing the press of ‘aiding and abetting the enemy’ in demagogic language” fit in?

IMHO, Somewhere between hysterical polemics and over the top hyperbole.

Disagree w/ the content of the post = fine. Randomly insulting the blogger instead = lame. Deletions follow.

Where does “undermining basic tenets of democracy by accusing the press of ‘aiding and abetting the enemy’ in demagogic language” fit in?

Also, if the Taliban are cowardly, what does that make you? Have you enlisted in this war that you love?

What’s your point? Both Vinod and Obama are both guilty of warmongering against Afghanistan and Pakistan and that’s f@#ked up…and?

I would note though that Obama has actually demonstrated a willingness to put his own life at risk for something he believes in while doing so (see assassination attempts on every president- stir in race, xenophobia, economic turmoil, fracturing of Republican Party and profoundly f@#ked up geopolitical situation).