Max Blumenthal visits the College Republican National Convention Tour to ask them why they’re not fighting in Iraq.
Comments are closed.
Open source, procurement, and gov tech.
Max Blumenthal visits the College Republican National Convention Tour to ask them why they’re not fighting in Iraq.
Comments are closed.
What Son of Sid doesn’t tell you is that many of the College Republicans have been volunteering with wounded veterans, donating money to scholarship funds for veterans’ children and otherwise supporting the troops in order to earn “combat credits” to offset their non-participation in actual combat.
Hey Smails, throw your hand straight up in the air (like your going to ask a question) and see if you can snag the “point” before it flies over your head.
The point is “anything but a rifle and a ruck”…and your “Yeah but they . . .” only drives it home. There is so much chest thumpin’ coming from the right sometimes I swear I think you guys are giving yourselves CPR.
I will close by saying any effort for the troops, undertaken by anyone will never be criticized in my book. What ever any of the CR’s did I appreciate and thank them for…because sadly, it many cases its more than I myself have done (other than 4 years as a grunt many years ago).
Tom Delay has got to be the biggest asshat in human history.
This quote is both astonishing and enlightening. Any reasonable human being should be able to see this quote and realize that the Bush Republicans have transcended insanity and now border on the being deranged sociopaths. No reasonable human being could read this and still associate with the title “Republican”.
If you consider yourself both Reasonable and Republican, you must now reconsider one or the other.
Not the chickenhawk argument again….
@ Tim:
I guess I shoulda put one of those semicolon doohickeys after my post, for I meant it to be a tongue-in-cheek skewering of both the hell-bent-for-leather CRs as well as the carbon offset crowd. I’m afraid the only head the point flew over was yours.
Shaun,
I read something interesting yesterday about the people who want this war and don’t want to enlist to make a difference:
Suit Up or Shut Up
I agree with this, in large part, because I have already suited up. I gave 4 years of my life to my country.
Compare this to those who would tell us that there is great progress in Iraq and that all we need is a little more time, yet, never have served.
Maybe we need a draft, so every area of society can be represented in this quagmire that your President has put us in.
What say you about these people who wave the flag furiously until it is suggested they serve?
To find out your not as far gone as you come across…I would happily eat a little crow.
Just a tip though, your TIC sounds just like your sincere logic.
There are two rather simple ways to stop the chickenhawk argument, Shaun.
@ Tim: Point taken. And I guess if I have to explain the gag it wasn’t as funny as I originally thought.
@ Mark: Although I’m sympathetic to your disdain for people who for you form the “Fortunate Son” crowd, ultimately I find this line of reasoning unpersuasive. You seem to be saying that if one has served in uniform, then he’s earned the right to either support or criticize the war. Yet if one hasn’t served, then he is free ONLY to criticize and NOT support it with his words alone. Seems a little unfair.
I know you’re not suggesting we restrict someone’s 1st Amendment rights or rethink civilian control of the military, but that’s where SUIT UP OR SHUT UP logically ends. In the final analysis, it’s a cute bumper sticker and little else.
Mark raised an interesting point of the draft (or the implied next step of mandatory service).
I was an opponent of mandatory service, until I served with soldiers from Germany and Israel, two of a handful of countries that require EVERYONE to serve a minimum of 2 years (Im sure there is a Fortunate Son crowd in every country, and they most likely get away with not serving…that I dont know).
The most striking difference was they have a cadre of built from a pool of ALL of the best and brightest, as opposed to our model built from a teaspoon of the best and brightest (that were willing to join).
If the above statement about our military pisses you off, it should.
Okay. I’ll bite.
Here’s the problem: With this logic, only teachers can comment on how your children should be educated. Only police officers are qualified to talk about public safety. Only lawmakers are qualified to discuss the laws you live under. The list can continue ad nauseam.
Like most epithets, the “chickenhawk” argument is a sideshow arrogating some form of authority the user probably doesn’t deserve. Certainly there are other items (say… factual information that can be intelligently discussed) that can be brought up rather than schoolyard namecalling, yes?
In short, it’s a dull argument on an issue that deserves a better discussion.
My US$0.02.
While I somewhat agree with Smails’ point about being free to criticize/support the war regardless of your past service, I think there is a little bit of difference here. It is more palatable to some to say that you are willing (and, in essence want) some people to die for the cause when you are willing to make that sacrifice yourself. Those of us who would not die for that cause also feel that we should not call for others to do so, either.
In general, I have to agree with the sentiment in Shaun Kenney’s post.
On a personal, rather than political level however, I think it shows a certain lack of character to on the one hand, state that you believe we are in some sort of existential crisis, and on the other hand, to lay so little on the line for it. A case can of course be made for staying in the US and working to raise support for the “war,” but in a lot of (though certainly not all) cases, this claim seems mostly a way to avoid placing yourself in danger.
No Mr. Kenney, you don’t get the logic what-so-ever.
To the extent that the fortunate and privileged see war advocacy like they see ordering about their pool boy, riding instructor, teachers, bakers, or law-makers, they don’t see their connection to the essential universal requirement of citizenship – service. And no, paying your taxes doesn’t get you close.
These kids either see no connection between themselves and the obligation to defend the nation…or they are just talking trash at the expense of other’s lives. Which is either annoying, given that this nation has afforded them so much, or completely in keeping with a unwarranted sense of entitlement. But nevermind.
I’m convinced that if any of these punks had been honest they would have said, “I can’t serve because my mom doesn’t want me to”. I blame their parents for not instilling a sense of duty and service in their fortunate sons and daughters. Perhaps we should just call them “Chickenhawk Peeps”.
Either the Global War on Terrah is “Teh Biggest, Most Importantest Thing EVAHHHH!” and we must do everything we can to beat back the brown, MOOOOOOSLIM hoards, or its not. If you believe that America is on the brink of sharia, hijabs and felafel for dinner, then maybe you should suit up and defend your way of life, especially if this Clash of Civilizations ™ is to the death. Otherwise, Shaun, you are just spewing cheap bullshit.
Okay, I’ll bite, too. I served 32 years, retired on 01 Sep 06. In general, I like the “suit up or shut” up argument but that’s just an emotional sound bite. Everyone has the right to criticize, veteran or no, 4-F or whatever. Well, almost everyone. Serving military in uniform are well advised to be very circumspect, for a lot of reasons beyond the scope of what I write here. What gripes my ass is the loudmouths who are all about the war, blah, blah, but have never even considered serving. As a member of the military (retirees are never discharged, and thus subject to involuntary recall, as happens a lot right now), I’d ask those “supporters of the troops” to please consider enlisting. I don’t want to hear about what else you’ve got going on in your life, kids, wives, husbands, businesses, other options or any of that. If you’re between 17 and 41, in good health and not openly gay (that’s the law, not my opinion) and you support the war, please go talk to a recruiter. Army, Navy, Marines, Air Force or Coast Guard. They all need you.
If you do that, and the military takes you, great. You have my every respect. If they say “no thanks” to you, that’s okay too. You did what you could, I respect you. Those of you unwilling to do that don’t deserve my respect.
Over 41 you say? We can’t turn back the clock. Encourage those under that age to go do the above. I do wonder where you were when we needed you, though.
Ah Shaun, desperately trying to dodge the point as usual. The point is that these same people who argue for the idea that we must accept that this mission and war are incredibly vital to human civilization seem gloriously unmotivated to follow their rhetoric to its conclusion. Criticizing that does not require anyone claim anything about authority: it’s a skewer of the complete lack of connection between rhetoric and action.