And you also mischaracterized the hell out of what I said. I prefer to argue on the offensive. Deflecting the other guy's arguments may keep me from losing ground, but it certainly doesn't gain me any. And I don't like the idea of someone else being allowed to frame a debate.
If you're going to argue about the merits of the Iraq war, do that. If you're going to suggest a different policy approach, do that. But the chickenhawk argument (and, incidentally, your comments on my response to it) is none of these things. It's strictly personal. And if someone personally attacks me, I will respond in kind.
If the other guy does what you just did and acknowledge the pettiness of the chickenhawk argument, then that's good; it can be agreed that he will never use it again, and maybe the debate can move back to substance, where it belongs (with me getting to choose the next topic, of course). If not, I'm stuck demonstrating the absurdity of the chickenhawk argument by using it against the person who originally threw it at me.
And since you've made the rather questionable decision to call me a chickenhawk, what have you done to oppose the war?
As I said in the beginning responding to the opposition's being petty by being petty yourself. Quite a strategy.
And since you've made the rather questionable decision to call me a chickenhawk, what have you done to oppose the war?
You make the assumption I oppose the war. I got into this because I do find amusing, and a bit pathetic, those who would cheerfully fight a war to the last drop of somebody elses blood. Keep up the good work.