|
.jpg)
Recent Posts by Rich GardnerRecent Similar Articles |
Fight for survival or the fight of the chickenhawks?
by
Rich Gardner | 08.12.2008
What IS Bill Kristol trying to say? Is the US engaged in a fight for survival or in a not-so-important struggle? William Kritsol in the NY Times says: Russia is aggressive, China despotic and Iran messianic — but none is as dangerous as the 20th-century totalitarian states.
Okay. But then he carries on with all sorts of 1930s, pre-World War II, Hitler and Churchill and appeasement-type analogies. Which is it Bill? He spends most of his column drawing a picture of a dark and evil world united against the forces of "freedom and democracy," only to acknowledge that well, it isn't all that bad. Diplomacy is an utterly hopeless and useless option, but it's not as if The West is in a fight for its very survival. First off, Bill displays the usual right-wing misconception as to why diplomacy exists. We can debate the late 1930s European example (and we have, ad infinitum and ad nauseum), but leaving that example aside, we can see that diplomacy is not and never was an attempt to "be nice to the bad guys" in the vain hope that they will be nice in return. It was always an attempt to find common ground, to find areas where we could agree and to build upon those areas of mutual interest. The US and the Soviet Union decided they had a mutual interest in survival in the face of many tens of thousands of nuclear weapons. Ipso, facto, ergo, sum, we engaged in diplomacy to try and defuse the struggle, to try and lower the temperature, to try to find a mutually satisfactory accomodation. The Soviet Union eventually collapsed from its own internal weaknesses, diplomacy prevented the two adversaries from blowing up the world in the meantme. And I'm sorry, but If the United States "...seem[s] oddly timid and uncertain" in the face of this existential/not so serious threat, it might be because, from President Bush on down, the right-wing side of the political spectrum in this country refuses to call for any real sacrifice for this melodramatically-named "War on Terror." The right-wing screamers and pontificators refuse to call for either higher taxes or for a draft, making a complete joke out of their picture of it as a "generational struggle" of allegedly huge significance. The problem with Kristol and all of his chickenhawk fellow travelers is that their rhetoric and their actions are in completely different worlds, where one has absolutely nothing to do with the other. As to this: But Georgia, a nation of about 4.6 million, has had the third-largest military presence — about 2,000 troops — fighting along with U.S. soldiers and marines in Iraq. For this reason alone, we owe Georgia a serious effort to defend its sovereignty.
Erm, I'm sorry, but there is no mutual, nationwide "we" that invited Georgia, formerly a province of Russia, to send 2,000 troops to Iraq. "We" peaceniks and hippies and people who felt that the unprovoked invasion of Iraq was a really bad idea never supported the war to begin with. Much less did we support other nations joining in on the fight. From the very beginning, the invasion of Iraq was what we considered to be an unwarranted war of aggression, illegal under international law. Yes, concerning Georgia, "Russia has sent troops and tanks across an international border," but on March 19, 2003, so did the US. The US looks upon the invasion of Georgia, not as a country that is morally superior to Russia, but as one that is their equal. |
|
© 1999–2008 Philadelphia Independent Media Center |
|
Unless otherwise stated by the author, all content is free for non-commercial reuse, reprint, and rebroadcast, on the net and elsewhere. Opinions are those of the contributors and are not necessarily endorsed by PhillyIMC.
|
Comments
Richmond, The insult of
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sat, 08/16/2008 - 2:09pmRichmond,
The insult of "chickenhawk" sort of lacks the usual sting when it's sneered by a "Personelman".
What did you do in the war? Harass the enemy with papercuts? Conduct biological warfare via lead posineing after you stabbed them with a #2 pencil?
I was an active-duty sailor
Submitted by Rich Gardner on Sat, 08/16/2008 - 8:40pmwhich is a heck of a lot more than can be said for Kristol, who was a civilian all of his life. Kristol and I are the same in that we never "heard a shot fired in anger." I served during the last two years of the Elder Bush and all through Clinton's two terms. No, I never saw action, but I was ready, willing and able to do so.
Had my ship gone into action, I would have remained in the office most of the time, but I was a fully-trained member of the damage control and fire-fighting team.
The essential definition of a chickenhawk is that they are pro-war, but are unwilling to go anywhere near where the fighting is. Our current President did indeed serve in the military, but even though there was a hot war going on, he saw to it that he stayed safely at home. He actively avoided going into harm's way, I didn't.
Rich Gardner
http://www.prawnworks.net/
Every Sailor is a fireman
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Wed, 08/20/2008 - 9:11pmRichmond,
Every sailor is a fireman. So are many members of the community that are volunteer fireman.
Do you have any fires under your belt?
If you don't, can they call you a "chickenhawk"?
BTW Richmond, you're a CHICKENSHIT FIRST CLASS for shitting on the graves of the 70 USAF and Air Guard pilot who lost their lives in the F-102. None of those deaths were in combat. It's a sad testiment to how dangerous flying the F-102 was back in the day.
We'll never know if you were ready and willing as you didn't see action. You might have been more like one of IVAW's current crop of dirtbags who when called deserted.
For sure we know that Bush flew that plane and that the dangers were more than just a paper cut.
Save The Troops Hypocrites
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Wed, 08/20/2008 - 9:19pmThe peace crowd says the want the troops home where they'll be safe. Amazing how that fits your agenda, cripple the American military.
Yet to protect Saddam, damn there were all those "Human Shileds" from your groups who went to Iraq to save Saddam.
Haven't seen even one of your side go to Iraq and stand 100 meters out from a checkpoint to put your way of soving the problem to the test, to try and save the troops you lie about when you say you support them.
Think of it, you could save those troops AND the Iraqi civilians. You could warn the civilians of the checkpoint ahead. And when it's not a civilian, you could warn the troops it's a car bomb.
And we're not pro-war. The military and military families are the last to want a war. As you're away from your family, your fellow troops become family. Nobody wants to risk family.
We're pro-America, pro-freedom and pro-liberty. You're not with all the support your side gives to the enemy over the years. Anyone that hates the USA, your side falls in love with.
USAF and Air Guard
Submitted by Rich Gardner on Thu, 08/21/2008 - 1:10pmUSAF and Air Guard pilot[s]...lost their lives in the F-102. None of those deaths were in combat.
And G.W. Bush dropped out of his Texas Air National Guard duties! In order, perhaps, to avoid dying as those USAF and Air Guard pilots did?!?! Hmm???
The point is, I served and made no attempt to avoid being in combat. I was fortunate to have a Commander in Chief who didn't run round starting unneeded wars for the sake of oil.
No, the grunts and the regular folks of the military families are not to blame for the Iraq War. No one ever suggested they were. We've never accused anybody below the Presidential or Respected Pundit or TV News commentator level of being chickenhawks and we never will.
Rich Gardner
http://www.prawnworks.net/
What Was Your Risk, Hemmiroids As a 2nd Class Clerk?
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Thu, 08/21/2008 - 11:29pmRichmond,
You didn't put in 20, so stop making me laugh. Everybody goes through the Damage Control Trainer, everyone has to qualify as a firefighter.
Bush had hundreds of hours in the F-102. A dangerous job. You on the other hand, if the keys stuck on the typewriter stuck, your ass didn't fall out of the sky did it.
Face it, you're just jealous that Bush was braver than you ever were.
As far as fortunate, you had an incompetent in Clinton bomb civilians from 30,000 feet in Kosovo.
And Wesley almost, ALMOST started WW3.
And don't give me that you don't blame the troops because you don't say Bush shot a child, you say some troop shot a child. You clowns are so full of hate that you'll trash the troops and then say you're not.
Face it, you're a CHICKENSHIT...
Facts
Submitted by Rich Gardner on Fri, 08/22/2008 - 11:11amThe FACT was that young G.W. Bush applied for the TANG and got in ahead of several hundred other applicants because he had a rich granddaddy and a rich daddy who was also a Congressman.
The FACT was that, yes okay, the F-102 was a dangerous plane to fly, but the skies of Texas were a lot safer than the skies of Vietnam.
The FACT remains that G. W. Bush is a chickenhawk because at the same time that he was seeking safer duties, he was making big, brave-sounding speeches about what a glorious war America was fighting at that time.
No, I didn't seek out the kind of military service where I got to stick bayonets into the chests of bad guys. I have no apologies to make about that fact.The FACT remains that Bush was a chickenhawk and I wasn't.
Rich Gardner
Chickenshit Second Class
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Fri, 08/22/2008 - 8:47pm"No, I didn't seek out the kind of military service where I got to stick bayonets into the chests of bad guys"
Chickenshit Second Class
Post new comment