You have commented 274 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Home Front
The Chickenhawk Arguments...
2003-10-13
This is a full entry from worthless ’Libertarian’ Radley Balko’s weblog.
Draft Ben Shapiro!

I’ll add my torch to this fire.

Joanne points to LewRockwell.com, where they’re urging bloodthirsty 19 year-old neocon and (mis)syndicated columnist Ben Shapiro to join the military. If you’re going to agitate for policies that send your generational brethren off to conquer Muslimdom, why not have the courage to spill a little blood yourself, Ben?

Ah, but see the Lew Rockwell crowd misjudges the precocious virtuouso violinist and UCLA senior’s motives. He doesn’t aspire to actually be a soldier, mind you. He merely wants to be the guy — like William Kristol — who gets to send them off to battle. And who asks for a check from you and I to buy the bullets.

So c’mon, Ben. Put up or shut up. Put down your pen. Pick up a gun. If the policies you advocate are worth the lives of your fellow millenials, surely they’re worth your dying for, too. Aren’t they?}
Dear Radley Balko:

You are a worthless, despicable, smelly piece of worm-infested manure. You very well know the ’Chicken-Hawk’ argument is a fallacy. In your weblog you show a moderate command of logic, enough to see that arguing ’anybody not willing to serve in the Military, should not advocate War’ is nothing more than cheap intimidation. Not that you are alone in this of course, you are backed by the aptly misnamed Cato Institute, which pretends to work for ’Individual Liberty, Limited Government, Free Markets, and Peace’ while in fact working for the Peace of the Catacombs. I could ask you, following Patrick Henry: Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? I could ask you, but it would do you no good, since you are a worthless, despicable, smelly piece of worm-infested manure.

Sincerely;

Sorge L. Diaz

P.S. Remember to walk carefully, you might drown in a pool of your own crapulence.


Normally, I dump opinion pieces, of which this is one, and I dump ad hominem attacks, of which this is also one. I'll leave it as an artifact of the now mercifully receding "Chickenhawk" argument. I've never read Radley Balko's blog. (Please remember to include links when referencing other people's blogs, by the way. It's good manners.) The meat of the thing is
Joanne points to LewRockwell.com, where they’re urging bloodthirsty 19 year-old neocon and (mis)syndicated columnist Ben Shapiro to join the military. If you’re going to agitate for policies that send your generational brethren off to conquer Muslimdom, why not have the courage to spill a little blood yourself, Ben?
lewrockwell.com advertises itself as an "anti-state, anti-war, pro-market" news site. I know Jonah Goldberg's had a few arguments with them, but I've never read them much. Too doctrinaire for me — a state's necessary, otherwise we can go back to hunting and gathering; war's often necessary, otherwise we'd be speaking Russian, or German, or French, or Spanish, or Arabic, and we'd be Muslims or Arian Catholics, or Aryan super-doopermen or communists; and markets are necessary but us (Teddy) Roosevelt Republicans worry about Malefactors of Great Wealth. Nor do I know who Ben Shapiro is, though Google tells me he's got a Townhall.com column. Shapiro is 19 years old and in his senior year at UCLA. The Joanne referenced refers to him as "19 year old (and extremely-closeted homosexual) neocon" — which sounds libelous to me, unless she's got a few affidavits from his gentleman lovers. Just more of the ad hominem stuff. And the Lew Rockwell people are daring him to enlist.

Okay. Enlist. Or don't enlist. It's a volunteer Army (and Navy and Air Force, and Marines, and Coast Guard.) Not enlisting doesn't mean you can't have an opinion, just as not having a minimal set of manners doesn't mean you can't engage in policy argument. No doubt Radley and Joanne and Lew Rockwell are very happy to see the large number of vets who post and comment here in favor of our efforts to "conquer Muslimdom." No doubt they stop by here often and consider our opinions because they're informed, because we've been there, done that, and know what the troops are going through and what they're capable of.

Yep. No doubt about it.

The other reason I'm sure they stop by regularly is because Rantburg carries hard news, with the opinion added as commentary, what Mark Byron calls our "yellow journalism." There's two years of news excerpts here, concerned with the War on Terror, interspersed here and there admittedly with some politix and some general foolishness for comic relief. It's hard to start reading the entries from September 11th, 2001 forward, day after day, day in and day out, covering bombings, killings, maimings, perfidy, lies, grandiosity and xenophobia, without coming to the conclusion that "conquering Muslimdom" is a good thing — the only means I can see of keeping our children from wearing turbans or being dhimmis.

It seems to me that you don't have to be a veteran to understand those nuggets of fact (not opinion, mind you) that are strung out in a two-year long string. Ideologues can read Lew Rockwell and The Nation and any number of other opinion sources, but those of us who prefer facts find it hard to remain ideologues. There's no need to call those who do "worthless, despicable, smelly piece of worm-infested manure." Someday, probably after I'm dead, this will be over. Either the last mullah will have been hung with his own turban or our children and grandchildren will be memorizing the Koran. If it's the former, the ideologues who were against war and government (as in organized action) are going to look pretty stupid. If it's the latter, they're still going to look pretty stupid — and evil either way.
Posted by:Sorge

#16  No, you lose the moral authority to argue for war if you yourself SHIRKED THE OBLIGATION TO SERVE. How difficult is that for you to people to comprehend? My god it only takes two or three synapses to figure that out.

But of course you guys are infested with moralists like Bill Bennett, and Rush Limbaugh, who inveigh against moral derelictions that they themselves have no intention of observing, and it bothers you not one whit, so I guess rank hypyocrisy is something you guys are entirely confortable with. Probably helps explain how you can support a lying, incomptent, unelected, fraud who leaks the identities of deep-cover CIA operatives and believe you are restoring "honor and dignity to the White House."

None are so blind as those that will not see.
Posted by: Anonymous   2003-10-16 6:46:41 PM  

#15  Oh...and don't ever call for the fire department unless you plan to join the fire brigade. right? Shheessh.
Posted by: B   2003-10-14 3:40:47 AM  

#14  It is so stupid. If you can't agrue FOR war unless you serve in the military....then you can't argue for meals on wheels, unless you cook in the kitchen...and you can't argue for abortion...unless you work the vacuums...and you can't be for or against any politician...unless you are on his staff.

The funniest part about the whole chickenhawk theory is that it is always put forth by the chickens....never the hawks.
Posted by: B   2003-10-14 3:21:38 AM  

#13  Is it a fallacious argument to demand/question that you put your life or those of your kids on the line if you advocate a military solution? None of the Neocons have their kids in the military
Posted by: Not Mike Moore   2003-10-13 11:59:25 PM  

#12  I said, boy, I said boy where them chickens. I said boy, you're about as sharp as a bo.w.l.i.ng ball.
Posted by: Foghorn L   2003-10-13 8:08:26 PM  

#11  Hey! Is this the best mannered Blog around or what?

Posted by: Shipman   2003-10-13 6:12:06 PM  

#10  I prefer to think of it as a reminder, not a rebuke.
Posted by: Fred   2003-10-13 3:44:35 PM  

#9  Ouch! It always feels bad to be rebuked. But, besides the fact this site is your property and you do what you will, you are right that this site is about links to the war on terrorism. My future guest posts will be all related to the war. About the piece being an Ad Hominem attack; it certainly is, but I believe myself justified since the original piece by Balko is itself an Ad Hominem attack.
Posted by: Sorge   2003-10-13 3:30:35 PM  

#8  Raj - Radley did a good rip on Fritz and the proper (Fred's rules) way to acknowledge/refer is just how you did it, thx :-)
Posted by: Frank G   2003-10-13 12:51:23 PM  

#7  What a bummer. Radley had a pretty good wrapup on the 36 year career of Luddite Senator Fritz Hollings (to which I say, 'Good riddance').
Posted by: Raj   2003-10-13 12:33:16 PM  

#6  "If it's the former, the ideologues who were against war and government (as in organized action) are going to look pretty stupid. If it's the latter, they're still going to look pretty stupid — and evil."

Naaahhh - they'll rewrite history, as usual
Posted by: Frank G   2003-10-13 12:25:45 PM  

#5  Well, I've found that I disagree with 90% of what appears on "LewRockwell.com", to the point I don't even read it any more. Rockwell's ideas are too arrogant for my taste - I hate anyone that constantly tells me how right he is. If this guy had half a brain, he'd be as popular as Ben Shapiro, and would have a reason to be listened to. Instead he is merely a bad (leftist) reflection of Rockwell, and equally as worthless.

I don't vote libertarian because the Libertarian party has too many wackos that have convinced themselves of their own greatness - delusional, in most cases.
Posted by: Old Patriot   2003-10-13 12:07:41 PM  

#4  Gee, the last time I checked, we weren't living in "Starship Troopers" where the only people allowed to vote or run society were those who completed service in the military. On the other hand, since I've done my time, let's do it. :)
Posted by: whitecollar redneck   2003-10-13 10:47:00 AM  

#3  it's 'asks for a check from you and me' not 'you and I'
Posted by: Anonymous   2003-10-13 10:16:49 AM  

#2  They're a little confused on the right way to prepare a southwest omelet.
Posted by: Robert Crawford   2003-10-13 8:53:31 AM  

#1  When I deployed, I didn't even know that this Radley Balko cared for me. I feel so much better knowing that the left-wing has my back. Why were they always spitting at me, though, and throwing eggs and tomatos. Was theat an expression of their love?
Posted by: Super Hose   2003-10-13 7:54:31 AM  

00:00