"Military service/experience affords them no extra respect..."

So far from being an advantage, you seem to be saying it's actually MORE egregious if someone with miltiary service supports the war because they should know better? Again then, you only prove what empty posturing the 'chickenhawks' bullshit is.

The point exactly. And yes, the 'chickenhawks' are nothing but empty posturing. Sadly, they're the ones in charge of this ongoing fiasco.

"It will be a cakewalk."...

Uttered by people both with and without military experience and so immaterial to this argument.

My argument IS NOT limited to just those who have worn the uniform. Keep in mind who the original post was written about.

If anything, the fact that Senator McCain hasn't changed his mind about Iraq after all this time, never mind disowned cheerleaders like Kagan, is even more tragic than the fact these men are still afforded air time.

"Re-read the original paragraph. The judgment rests on what they choose to support and advocate, not their service records."

So why are their service records bought up?

Some people here have told me only people without military experience could advocate such action (demonstrably not true).

We agree on this point.

You seem to be suggesting it's worse if people with military experience do advocate such action because they know how bad it will be and advocate it anyway.

EXACTLY. Simple common sense and decency should make that a no-brainer.

"All are worthy of respect, but none are considered beyond criticism."

I agree. But if you crtiicise someone for holding an opinion, citing their lack of military experience as an aggravating factor, then criticise someone else for holding that same opinion, suggesting the military experience they do possess is either irrelevant or makes their holding of the opinion MORE egregious, then you have forfeited any seriousness your argument might have because it is fundamentally inconsistent. Military experience is necessary when the 'war lovers' do not possess it, and irrelevant or aggravating when they do.

And here we disagree. I have not and have never said military service is irrelevant or necessary for 'war lovers'. Please don't conflate my opinions with others.

The short of it this: this disaster in Iraq, which is growing worse by the day, is being supported by those who have no experience or creditability in military operations or the region and by those with a record of military service who should know better than to continue the occupation. In both cases, these supporters have forfeited any moral authority upon which to base their support. 'Military service' isn't relevant at this point because the final result is still more dead Americans and Iraqis and a region coming apart at the seems.

How difficult is that to understand?

What that distils to is you have no respect for anyone in favor of the continued occupation of Iraq, regardless of their credentials or lack thereof.

Indeed I do not. Nor should you, nor anyone who is willing to acknowledge this Gordonesque disaster for what it is.

That's fine. But it is almost always true of those who trot out the chickenhawk argument at the Kagans and Kristols.

Which has what to do with the original argument? My lack of respect against them is based on practical consideration of the outcome of the actions they've proposed and initiated, not purely ideological ones.

You might not be one of them, but you share the condition of believing that nothing entitles one to continued support of the Iraqi occupation - which means their attempts to attack those who do based on lack of military experience is fundamentally dishonest.

That presupposes I believe that in the first place. McCain, the Kagan brothers, and the rest of the world are perfectly entitled to support the occupation for whatever reasons they wish. Simply because they are entitled to their opinions does not mean they can't be criticised, called out, and deservedly mocked for them.

There are a thousand and one reasons to oppose the continuence of this madness. That some of the loudest supporters of it have no military experience, yet present themselves as strategic masterminds, is just one of them.

Again, do NOT automatically conflate my reasons for wanting this occupation ended with everyone else's.

If we follow that kind of logic, the argument could be made that you - like anonymoose and shooter242 - are in favor of ongoing ethnic cleansing, social violence, and the complete destruction of any civil society in that region, all by virtue of your continued support of this occupation.

What could possibly be different from occupying Iraq, that qualifies for putting American "anything" in harm's way?

Two scenarios calling for armed response come to mind:

*A deliberate attack upon the US mainland by a foreign power or its proxies.

*The illegal seizure and holding of American citizens by a foreign government or its proxies.

You, of course, will protest and weasel out of your own statement. That seems to be your function in life.

And for the record, occupying Iraq is a disaster that didn't need to happen. Anyone supporting its continuation is supporting ethnic cleansing, sectarian chaos, and needless death and destruction.