Evisceration of a young Chickenhawk

[BurtWorm]

Courtesy of Steve Gilliard:

http://stevegilliard.blogspot.com/2005/08/i-have-right-to-be-chickenhawk.html


Thursday, August 18, 2005


I have a right to be a chickenhawk

Atrios points this out

The virgin Ben Shapiro explains why he's too good to serve in the military ( we don't link to rightwing sites):


The "chickenhawk" argument is dishonest. It is dishonest because the principle of republicanism is based on freedom of choice about behavior (as long as that behavior is legal) as well as freedom of speech about political issues. We constantly vote on activities with which we may or may not be intimately involved. We vote on police policy, though few of us are policemen; we vote on welfare policy, though few of us either work in the welfare bureaucracy or have been on welfare; we vote on tax policy, even if some of us don't pay taxes. The list goes on and on. Representative democracy necessarily means that millions of us vote on issues with which we have had little practical experience. The "chickenhawk" argument -- which states that if you haven't served in the military, you can't have an opinion on foreign policy -- explicitly rejects basic principles of representative democracy.

The "chickenhawk" argument also explicitly rejects the Constitution itself. The Constitution provides that civilians control the military. The president of the United States is commander-in-chief, whether or not he has served in the military. Congress controls the purse strings and declares war, no matter whether any of its members have served in the military or not. For foreign policy doves to high-handedly declare that military service is a prerequisite to a hawkish foreign policy mindset is not only dangerous, but directly conflicts with the Constitution itself.

No, Ben, you're a chickenhawk because you expect other people to do what you want done. If you think the Iraq war is so important, why are you not serving? While you construct a strawman argument, that's all it is, you avoid the key question: why is your service not required in a war you support?

[BurtWorm]

1. Further evisceration by Lindsay Beyerstein

Why most chickenhawks are hypocrites

1. A chickenhawk supports the war and could volunteer to fight.

2. Moreover he* recommends the war enthusiastically, and tries to convince other people that the war is worthwhile. He may have exhorted us to invade Iraq in the first place. Maybe he even attacks critics of the war for being "weak" or "unpatriotic."

3. He knows that there aren't currently enough troops to fight the war properly.

4. He understands that if the war is not fought properly, we will lose. He can't advocate the status quo, because that would be hypocritical. After all, he says he supports the war. He also claims to support our troops, and he wouldn't want any unnecessary deaths for lack of reinforcements.

More at http://majikthise.typepad.com/majikthise_/2005/08/why_m...

[donco6]

2. And where were these arguments when they

were used against Bill Clinton? Funny, I don't remember the RWers bringing any of this up.

[BurtWorm]

3. He said "the principle of republicanism."

If you're republican, it's okay.

PS: His argument seems also to be, it's okay if you're ignorant.

[DinahMoeHum]

4. I have a two-word, one-name response for him: PAT TILLMAN.

Yep, the football guy who turned down a multimillion dollar contract extension with the NFL Arizona Cardinals so that he could join the Army and serve our nation.

And for that, he made the supreme sacrifice in Afghanistan - due to "friendly fire", stemming from mistakes/incompetence in the operation his superiors drew up.

So this Ben Shapiro thinks he's BETTER than Pat Tillman ?????
Who the hell does he think he's kidding ???
Shapiro should put his $$$ and his cock where his mouth is and join up. Yellow elephant candy-ass sissy. Sign up or shut up.


:argh:

[_ed_]

5. Great article

I also sent this clown a private email via his website. No response.

-ed

Mr. Shapiro,

I just finished reading your recent article concerning "chickenhawks." I'm an Iraq War Veteran and a West Point Graduate. I left the Army with the rank of Captain, spent a year of ground combat in the Sunni Triangle, and was awarded the Bronze Star.

Your article is logically fallacious and is simply another attempt by a republican to justify his role as cheerleader for a war he refuses to fight. The fact that you are a young man of military age only makes it more disgusting.

You claim, "According to the American left, only pacifists, military members who have served in combat and direct relatives of those slain in combat or in acts of terrorism. The rest of us -- about 80 percent of voters -- must simply sit by silently. Our opinions do not matter. You want disenfranchisement? Talk to the political left, which seeks to exclude the vast majority of the American populace from the national debate about foreign policy."

That's simply wrong. Disenfranchisement refers specifically to withdrawing one's "franchise." Are you prohibited from voting or expressing your beliefs? Obviously not, since you are allowed to write nonsense such as this. No one is denying you the right to convey your right-wing diatribes. No one on "the left" has used the mechanism of law or government to deny you rights. Your victim-syndrome argument is just silly.

You go on to explain how the "left" uses ad hominem attacks, and calling those who clamor for war, but are unwilling to fight, "chickenhawks." You then say that this argument is "dishonest" because "the principle of republicanism is based on freedom of choice about behavior (as long as that behavior is legal) as well as freedom of speech about political issues."

You're exactly right. You have the freedom of choice to decide whether or not you will defend your nation in time of war. You have chosen not to, and I am equally free to judge your choice. You have chosen to sit idly by and watch better men defend your nation, even as you sit behind the comfort of your computer screen and clamor for a war you are too good to fight and die for. There's a word for people who rely on others to die for things they believe in - that word is coward. Substitute "chickenhawk" if that fits.

You go on to link this to some sort of Constitutional issue and then call people who question you "irrational." This is not an irrational argument. This is not some sort of obtuse policy issue, such as Social Security. War is something that should affect the citizens of a nation equally. Why should a few bear such a great burden? In our previous wars, sacrifice was borne by the nation as a whole. Take World War Two as the prime example of this. Imagine yourself writing your partisan article at the height of our war against fascism! What devices would you employ to justify not fighting in that war?

You finished your justification for cowardice by claiming that the soldiers fight and die for the "right of civilian hawks to speak up in favor of the highest level of moral and material support for their heroism." This final statement shows your true colors. "Supporting the Troops" goes far beyond slapping a magnet on your car or writing for a far right wing website. Moral and material support? You've got to be kidding me. My unit rolled into Iraq with no body armor, and most of our vehicles armed with nothing more than canvas. There was a point where we had to ration water! Veterans benefits are cut by your party all the time. Republicans smear real war heroes like John Kerry and Max Cleland. Members of your party even had the audacity to wear Purple Heart band-aids at your National Convention, mocking every soldier wounded on the fields of battle. Partisan hack Rush Limbaugh denounced a recent Iraq Vet running for Congress as a “staff puke.” Support? Hardly.

You say, “Representative democracy necessarily means that millions of us vote on issues with which we have had little practical experience. The "chickenhawk" argument -- which states that if you haven't served in the military, you can't have an opinion on foreign policy -- explicitly rejects basic principles of representative democracy.” Again, you’re playing logic games. You quickly change the argument from “voting” to “opinions,” another dishonest ploy. As I said above, no one denies your right to vote on foreign policy issues, or even hold an opinion. However, I have every right to denounce your opinions as invalid, because you have no idea what you’re talking about. Do you really think you know what war is like? Have you ever had blood on your effete hands? No? Then don’t pretend to know what war is like, and don’t pretend you are some sort of victim of the “left.”

In the first line of your article, you ask, “Who is qualified to speak on matters of national security?” Qualified… that’s a loaded word. It means “having the appropriate qualifications.” Mr. Shapiro, you are not “qualified” to speak about war. Perhaps if our elected officials were “qualified,” then nearly 1900 of my brothers and sisters in arms wouldn’t have been sacrificed in a war we didn’t need to fight.

[TNOE]

8. Beautiful Letter

Look how the right is musing..... - if you can stomach it.

http://www.rightnation.us/forums/index.php?showtopic=85016

[nookiemonster]

25. -ed-, that was a fantastic letter. Thank you.

TNOE, I followed your link. Words cannot describe that...forum. I think this sums it up:



What a bunch of chickenshits.

:scared:

[HootieMcBoob]

38. Get a load of the logic from this Einstein of the right

Tom_Servo
post Aug 17 2005, 05:49 AM
Post #11

The "chickenhawk" argument is a silly one. If you support the war effort you must join the military or your some kind of hypocrite. Dumb argument made by dumb people.

Use the same stupid logic in sports. You can't say anything bad about a pro baseball player unless you spent a few years playing in the major leagues.

Sometimes I struck speechless by the absolute stupidity of some of the people.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

9. Excellent response.

:patriot:

[mmonk]

11. Love your response

"There's a word for people who rely on others to die for things they believe in - that word is coward. Substitute "chickenhawk" if that fits."

:rofl:



Best line I've heard in a while. These jerks don't know the meaning of sacrifice.

[Mabus]

23. That's the line that caught my husband's attention

I was reading the response outloud to my husband - who was politely pretending to listen. When I got to that line the whole thing started clicking. He had me start over. He logged on and sent the link to several friends.

What a great line because it is so true. Both my parents served in the military. Mom was a WAC and dad was a Marine who did two tours of duty in the Korean Conflict. He is also the recipient of two Purple Hearts. He voted for Kennedy and was a RFK supporter. When Bobby was shot my dad stopped voting. He re-registered and voted in 2004 because of the SBVT and their BS. He's been against Iraq since the beginning. He'll pissed as hell when he gets wind of this twisted logic of a chickenhawk.

[mmonk]

26. My dad served

in the 79th Infantry division in World War II. He's deceased now, but was a loyal democrat. He would be so disappointed with this country right now, especially with it's disregard for the Geneva Conventions and international law. Glad to here of your family's service and thanks.

That line really hit the nail on the head.

[BurtWorm]

12. Ed, please run for office!

We need people like you to get the chickenhawks out of power!

:toast:

(Welcome to DU.)

[Vickers]

14. Great letter, Captain!

As for me, any time a chickenhawk gives me his excuses, I just say, "Dude, just face it, you're a pussy. I'm a pussy, too, but you're an even BIGGER pussy than me, because I joined up while you sat around here and played rah-rah."

:spank:

[SalmonChantedEvening]

17. Thank you for your service Ed!

I salute you. :patriot:

[Duncan Grant]

19. Nominating with the hope others will read your letter.

Your paragraph 8 is the most succinct indictment of Republican fanaticism that I've had the pleasure to read. I hope you'll be posting frequently.

Welcome to DU! :thumbsup: :patriot:

[myrna minx]

20. What an amazing letter.

Welcome to DU, brother. Thank you for your service. :hug:

[Dudley_DUright]

22. Oh that was so good, I think I need a cigarette

:smoke:

(and I don't smoke). I read Steve G's take-down of Mr. Shapiro earlier and thought it was good, but yours was oh so much better. Thank you!

[walldude]

24. WOW _ed_ awesome response

and Welcome to DU!!!! :toast:

[Swamp Rat]

27. Huzzah!!! ... BRING IT ON!!!

[annabanana]

28. Thank you -ed-

You put it in a clear and concise manner. I doubt that you'll get a response from him, because he knows you're right. If he should choose to respond, he'll probably just attack you in an ad hominum fashion and question your service, your Star, and your experience.

The question is, how many people are still buying this tripe.

and a big Welcome to DU! :toast:

[_ed_]

29. Wow

Thanks for all the responses and support. I had no idea this would strike such a chord here.

Should I repost my email to Shapiro as an post of its own? Or just leave it here?

[Duncan Grant]

34. _ed_, that's worth its own thread, imho.

Post it as a thread - it rocks. :thumbsup:
edit: subject line

[BurtWorm]

36. You should post it in its own thread.

I'm honored that you posted it in this one, but you would get a lot of responses on your own, I'm pretty sure, because more people would find it.

[frictionlessO]

30. Incredible! That was excellent!

_Ed_ you rock!

[Elidor]

32. If someone spanked me that thoroughly,

I'd crawl away and die. Alas, that this cretin doesn't have the wit to do just that.

Well told.

[KarenInMA]

33. ed, thank you for your service

and your response to this man.

[tk2kewl]

37. _ed_...

:yourock:

Thanks for your service and PLEASE keep speaking out! :patriot:

[indepat]

6. My fantasy is that each and every chickenhawk be thoroughly eviscerated

[jonkronz2003]

7. Cool!

So Repukes believe in freedom of choice-someone tell the right to life people they've been hearing the wrong message.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

10. IMHO the best freeper-head-exploder in the article is THIS:

"You say Michael Moore is anti-military, despite his raising supplies and money for soldiers serving in Iraq."

Anyone has links to corroborate this? That's a gem!

[BurtWorm]

13. I can't verify it, but I heard that he did do that.

It seems like something he would do.

[Johonny]

15. Yawn

Defines chickenhawk in a way 99.9 % of liberals don't use it. Then defends against phoney definition. The blog shows the writer is either dishonest or stupid. Or both since they're not mutually exclusive.

[SalmonChantedEvening]

16. Did he mean to defend Clinton like this?

"The president of the United States is commander-in-chief, whether or not he has served in the military."

Oops.

[Gay Green]

31. I don't think he did because the others certainly did not

They called him a draft-dodging, pot-smoking, womanizing, queer-loving scalawag who had no legitimate right to occupy the Bush Throne but only got in and got to lord it over the military with an iron fist because of Perot.

:mad: :grr: :nuke:

[SalmonChantedEvening]

35. And thinking like that would only lead to one conclusion:

That OxyContin's a killer. Best to never start. ;)

[ballabosh]

18. Chickenhawk presidents

These guys need to learn their history. The original letter refers to Abraham Lincoln, who served in the Black Hawk War, as a chickenhawk. And in the thread linked above another poster claims that Truman would be considered one too. Truman served in WWI.

[Freedomfried]

21. Why call "chickenshits" chickenhawks?

Call em what they are, chickenshit motherfuckers.

A chickenhawk is an honorable bird, the chickenshits are dishonorable, cowardly people.