Now I'm an old fart, and the military has no use for me. But I have learned something in the intervening years, and that is why nobody asks 19-year-olds to run the country. |
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 ...
This is a variation of the argument that only pregnant women can have an opinion on abortion.
I don't own a Barcalounger either. And, what is this "Dictator in chief" crap??
My answer to him is "Let's compare DD 214s".
I had to check several times to make sure I hadn't stumbled into DU by mistake...
Let's boil this twaddle down to the essence Stone keeps trying to dance around: He's saying, "it's good to speak out against a war (like Stone), but cowardly to speak out for going to war (like those who disagree with him)".
Nice try, but what's really "cowardly" here is Stone's attempt to silence the opposition by painting them as hypocrites and himself as noble.
What a childish thing to do.
Now if you'll excuse me, I have to get back to the serious business of explaining the necessity of waging war on Iraq with people who have sufficient IQs to understand the issue.
Now I'm an old fart, and the military has no use for me. But I have learned something in the intervening years, and that is why nobody asks 19-year-olds to run the country. |
Let me be very specific: if you are in favor of any war ANYWHERE, then you are not a libertarian.
A libertarian is a person who believes that no human being has the right -- under ANY circumstances -- to initiate force against another human being, nor to advocate or delegate its initiation. If you don't believe that, you're not a libertarian, pure and simple.
No libertarian can be in favor of any kind of war. War is totally at odds with the Zero Aggression Principle.
Now, let's forget the specifics of any given war, because they really don't matter. War -- as a concept -- cannot be waged without the initiation of force.
On a high level, war requires government, and government requires initiation of force. I know it would be nice to imagine a world in which government didn't initiate force, but it's not possible. Government initiates force against the governed. Government cannot so much as put one brick atop another without stealing money or resources to get it done. Certainly the massing of troops on anyone's border is an affair requiring billions of dollars in this day and age, and these billions must be stolen from the governed.
Government -- as a concept -- initiates force. Government without initiated force is the same as fish without water: e.g. DEAD.
For any so-called libertarian to be in favor of war is to be in favor of government. For any so-called libertarian to be in favor of government is to be in favor of initiated force. To be in favor of initiated force is to not be a libertarian.
Well said.
This author is so obviously disingenous that I'm surprised that a few Freepers were fooled by it. <>P
In 1942 my dad, along with most of the Rice Institute football team, joined the Marines, though he ended up in the Navy. The same year, my mothers 40+ father, a surgeon, joined the Army.
In WWI my other grandfather was a Navy seaman, one Great Grandfather a Navy Captain, and a total of three of my four Great Grandfathers served. The one who did not, sent both sons to France.
I am descended from Capt. Taylor, 4th Texas Cav, CSA; General Mouton, 10th La. Inf CSA; and another dozen men who served including a Major General.
One GGGGrandfather, David McGee was with Washington at Valley Forge. A great uncle fought in Cuba, a first cousin once removed in WWII, Korea, and two tours in Viet Nam.
My 19 year old son is talking about leaving school to join the Army right now. If they would take a 53 year old, I would go in a minute.
You may call me a coward because I know I will not be allowed to go, however I am sure my family has earned the right to support any damn thing we want, war included.
We need a sign up on these monkey cages: "Please don't feed the ideologues." Razz has posted and ran, apparently more concerned about using the FR carpet to defecate anarcho-dopertarian drivel upon.
You can pretty much count on it. The question is how much of it, and just what kinds of bad stuff they have.
And how will American's react. Like a witch hunt? Shoot first and ask later? Door to door searches? How will the government act with war on the homefront?
They'll leave the Isalmics alone and further restrict your rights, based strictly on their performance since 9-11-01. That's not quite fair, they have arrested a bunch of 'em and probably caught others that we haven't heard about. But the stuff the transportation folks came up with is just stupid. Notice too that inspite of Congress passing a law, actualy two of them IIRC, providing for the arming of airline pilots, none are yet (legally) armed.
He most certainly has, unless you let him in there yourself. He has inititiated force, and any liberatrian would cheer when you blew his ass away.
That said I still disagree with the notion that government war is not legitimate. It's the prime reason we have a federal government, that is to protect us from foreign enemies. Force has been initiated in this case also, at Khobar Towers, on the Cole and finally on 9-11-01.
We did go down to the recruiting station and found out we weren't wanted or needed because we were over 30. So what are we to do?
Enemies foreign or domestic, such as the libertarian loon we are reading here who claims that all Constitutional government (as well as the Constitution) is evil.
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.
This is crap. We can't all be 19 years old. When I was 19, I was in the military. Nobody asked me squat about whether we should go to war.