Posted on 02/11/2003 5:57:19 PM PST by Razz
I'm sympathetic to someone like my grandfather, for example. A World War II veteran, he views Bloody Tuesday as a declaration of war greater than the attack on Pearl Harbor. I certainly don't deny that as an initiation of force, Bloody Tuesday as an event exceeds Pearl Harbor.
In my grandfather's day, the American psyche was such that the day after such an incident, there would be lines several blocks long in front of every military recruitment center in America. The assumption would have been that such an incident is inherently an act of war, and it would only be a matter of hours before Congress officially declared it. As such, the military would need as many people as possible. The only thing a responsible male over the age of 16 could have done was sign up immediately.
Indeed, in December of 1941, the only reason not to enlist was severe physical infirmity.
While I certainly don't agree with government warfare (it's immoral -- see my essay "State of Disunion 2003"), nor do I believe there's any reason to immediately enlist, I believe the reason we don't see this occurring is inherent in the callers to Republican talk radio.
I can't count the number of times since Bloody Tuesday that armchair generals have gibbered: "We need to go over there and -- !" "We need to send troops to -- !" "We need to make sure that -- !"
The operative word in all these statements is "we." As with Bill Clinton's unusual definition of "is," one needs to parse the words of the caller who uses "we."
When a caller says "we," what he really means is "anyone other than ME."
I admit that this makes my blood boil faster than almost anything else. The topic of discussion will always be about whatever war may be looming, and what the caller thinks "we" should be doing about it.
I have news for the caller: "we" aren't doing anything. YOU are sitting at home in your Barcalounger with your overweight behind growing ever larger. Other peoples' sons and daughters will be dying at the behest of the Dictator-in-Chief, not you. Simply because they're troops working for the FedGov doesn't make you part of them.
If you -- personally -- feel something needs to be done about Saddam Hussein, more power to you. You are perfectly free to buy a rifle and a plane ticket to Baghdad. If you -- personally -- want to start sniping at Hussein or his generals, join the various revolutionary groups that no doubt exist, or otherwise actively work to see that he starts pushing up the daisies as soon as possible, you have my full support.
If your only participation is to call Republican talk shows, post in Web sites, write in newsgroups, or otherwise tell everyone how you think other people need to die, then I call you what you are:
You're a coward.
You're a wussy, a mango, a scaredy-cat, a flicker, a shirker, a yeller dog, a pencatazo, a dingo, a caitiff, a poltroon, a capo, a yitney, a funk, a sop, a weathercock, a wimp, and a chicken.
You're a whining, lazy, pencil-necked, pantie-waisted, gutless, quiche-eating, egg-sucking, craven, disgusting little yellow-belly.
If you think something needs to be done to Saddam Hussein, then have the strength of your convictions. Pick up a gun, buy a plane ticket, and feel free to put your life on the line. If you're not willing to do that, then you're just a load of hot air, and we have enough of that in the world.
Actions talk, and cow patties walk. If you're one of the cow patties, please refrain from messing up the living room carpet any further -- by shutting the hell up!
(Excerpt) Read more at sierratimes.com ...
Unlikely to be well received on UN-Free Republic.
How long before it's pulled???
Wisdom and purpose should overcome passoin in this case.
Being in support of a war to protect our national security while not actually doing the fighting is not cowardice. We have a very professional military to handle Saddam Hussein. I don't think the war effort would be better served if middle-aged, pot-bellied couch potatoes were to be enlisted. I suspect that Mr. Stone has an anti-war, anti-American agenda and that bears out in his writing.
exception for true self/family defense.
What tipped you off, Sam? ;)
I, personally, believe that a mere rifle is inadequate to the problem. A 10 megaton thermonuclear device detonated over Baghdad would be more to my liking. Let's say a 5,000 foot airburst. Adding Cobalt would be even better!
Alas, I don't have the several million that a used Russian ICBM would cost (yes, North Korea would have a cheaper model, but I want yield and quality!); however, I see no reason why I couldn't start a joint venture with other investors. I dare say we could get quite a lot of interest in nuking Baghdad at $1000 per share! As an alternative, perhaps the US would be willing to sell us a missle...thus keeping the money right here in the USA.
Of course we'd have a drawing to decide which lucky participant would get to press the button and launch the missle!
So, if we can get enabling legislation passed, I'll be more than glad to start preparing the needed documents!
(Yes, I'm being silly...but the article's author started it!)
In World War Two, I believe the figure was that out of every ten servicemen, possibly only two or three were selected as front line. Why? because a modern army cannot exist without suppliers, cooks, signallers, clerks, armourers, and holding battalions.
What of a highly technical and intricate force today?. Those who think that a man can swagger in and say " Hey Colonel, let me at em, I will shoot down all of em' " must have been watching an old Jimmy Cagney movie.
Cagney of course, in one film,flew in to the parade in his own plane and then landed and told em' what HE was going to do. Hollywood hokum of course. A good read is No More Parades by Ford Madox Ford, on World War One. Yes, there was a General Headquarters- well behind the lines.
I am an American by birth ... free-born.
I am a patriot by decision.
The go to war/don't go to war argument is nothing more than the right of the people to be armed or gun control/dis-arm the people.
Intellectualize it all you want.
The bottom line is ... Those that would wage warfare have bloodied noses and have had their noses bloodied.
Those that would discuss and politic are cowards and have never kicked ass nor had their ass kicked.
Pain sucks but it's a part of growing up. So is winning and losing.
Determiation is discovered by winning and losing.
Sure am glad I'm not this POS's wife or kid depending on him to protect me from bad guys. "Well my little daughter, I just can't justify initiating any force against this guy who broke into your bedroom. He hasn't actually initiated any force against you yet, has he? Well then, I have to just sit here until he cuts your throat, but by God, I'll let him have it then!"
Sounds to me like he's a whining, sniveling little left wing coward trying to say that those who call for military action to protect us are REALLY the cowards.
I believe it's called transference.
And BTW, the coming war in Iraq is NOT an initiation of hostilities. It is a resumption of the war started by Iraq when it invaded Kuwait, and placed on hold when Saddam agreed to a cease fire agreement. He has violated the agreement, and now the war continues. Kinda like a pause button on the VCR.
And I'm tired of you left wing morons continuing to push that lie!!!!!
Whew! Man, I feel great! You folks gotta try a good old rant every once in awhile! It's refreshing!!
Sure thing, chief. As soon as I finish Qadafi's Green Book.
Awfully decent of you, kid.
Cripes! This thing starts at the bottom and goes downhill.
Insofar as self-avowed libertarians are also moral-liberals and moral-cowards, yes.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.