Armchair chickenhawk warblogger Bill Ardolino reports from Fallujah. One of his readers comments:
I have sat and cried just seeing the pics and reading the article. I have 2 Marines in Fallujah right now and I cannot wait to show this article to any and everyone I see. Do you think if enough of us sent the article to foxnews they would put this story up front? NOWHERE else have I seen pics like these, of the actual work that has been going on. Thank you just doesn’t seem enough for the author and I know it isn’t enough for these Marines. And I would venture to say neither is expecting one. But from the bottom of this Marine momma’s heart, THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU.
Bill is supported by reader donations – there’s a link at the bottom of his page.
Hey, Kate, a relative handful who walk the talk doesn’t let the bloviating blogging tories off the hook. Now maybe if Ezra Levant joined the Marines….
Iraq will ultimately only stay free if the people there want it so….there have to be patriots who treasure freedom and democratic ideals enough to fight and die for them…if that burning passion for freedom exists in a people freedom and democracy will prevail over tyranny…if not…tyranny will rule.
I wish there were more people in my own country with the passion for freedom these Iraqi “protectors” show.
As opp. to what Manny?..the bloated left where nobody has ever signed on to anything remotely smelling like standing up for democracy, rule of law and way of life?
Then get on over there and start making IED’s Manny. Your side is in danger of losing. Chickendoves…
Kate, I propose the use of a new term:
“Chickendove”
It goes something like this –
“What moral right do you have to advocate pulling the troops out of Afghanistan. Let me know when you’re willing to live under the brutal Taliban rule, until then you should remain silent on the issue……chikendove.”
Just as absurd as “chickenhawk”, but hey, gotta be consistent right?
Whoops, I see you’re all over it.
“Chickendoves…
Posted by: Kate at September 9, 2007 12:55 PM
Kate, I propose the use of a new term:
“Chickendove””
Biff and Kate, you need to co-ordinate your group-think a little more tightly.
Two people mock a term that is collectively used by virtually the entire anti-war left,
and we’re the ones guilty of “groupthink”?
Could it get any richer?
…I think Archie Bunker had a better name:
“meathead”
The fathers of the commonwealth republics and the libertarian reformers who inspired them had another term that fits well. Like Mill, they though those unwilling to defend freedom to be “miserable creatures”….
“War is an ugly thing but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing he cares about more than his personal safety; is a miserable creature who has no chance of being free, unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. ”
– John Stuart Mill
Yes, the creed of the (so-called) anti-war left seems to be “Give me liberty, or give me slavery.”
Isn’t the term “chickenhawk” also derogatory?
I see Manny has not fully cogitated upon the fact that Osama Bin Deadawhile is on -his- side.
You might want to think about that a little bit Manny. When the head muppet for the Assganistanian head cutters is spouting YOUR talking points…
Hey “A”, how about the term TROLL? Don’t you have a bridge to haunt?
I’m certainly not on Osama’s, or any fundamentalist wingnut’s side, but nor am I on Stevie Harper and his bloviating Tories’s side. Nor do I believe that nothing is worth fighting for. I just don’t believe in this fight. If you do, however, Redux and co., then WHY aren’t YOU in this fight??? If you’re too old, why don’t you send your children??? Perhaps if Mill were around today he may conclude that there is something even uglier than “A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight”, that being “one who strikes the pose of a warrior, who imputes the personal courage of a soldier in combat to themselves by virtue of the fact that they are in favor of sending that soldier off to war, or who parades around with the pretense of personal courage and resolve while assuming none of the risks. And a ‘chicken hawk’ will, conversely, attempt to depict those who oppose such wars as being weak, spineless ….”
“Chickenhawk” was originally the title of an excellent book by Robert Mason about the incredibly brave helicopter pilots of the U.S. Army who flew in Vietnam. Obviously the idiots who now employ it as a term of derision have no idea of this.
The Phantom: Don’t you have a bridge to haunt?
Oh, probably, but that still doesn’t take away from the fact that Kate is (unintentionally?) calling Bill Ardolino a hypocrite.
I hungry. Feed me now.
There are lots of things Manny believes are worth fighting for…they just happen to involve berets and living in fetid jungles for extended periods of time..
“I’m not a politician, so I can have no opinion on politics.”
“I’m not a teacher, so I can have no opinion on education.”
“I’m not a nurse or a doctor, so I can have no opinion on medicare.”
“I’m not a road-crew worker, so I can have no opinion on the state of the roads.”
“I’m not a minister or a priest, so I can have no opinion on religion.”
“I’m not a soldier, so I can have no opinion on the Iraq War.”
LOGIC, people!!!! The chicken-hawk tag is such a lame, unthinking insult.
“Chicken-doves” — like it. These trolls need to live under the Taliban for a while to show us they mean it when they say, “Peace.”
Belisarius: “Chickenhawk” was originally the title of an excellent book by Robert Mason about the incredibly brave helicopter pilots of the U.S. Army who flew in Vietnam. Obviously the idiots who now employ it as a term of derision have no idea of this.
Be that as it may, Belisarius, but the current meaning is the current meaning. So unless Bill Ardolino is in fact a former Vietnam War helicopter pilot, or Kate actually does think little of him for not picking up a gun and joining The Good Fight, or she knows something we don’t, I still going with ironic little boo-boo here.
And . . . most soldiers involved in Afghanistan and Iraq support what Nato and the U.S. want to accomplish there. If you’re gonna go with the “chicken-hawk” thing (i.e.: don’t be pro-mission unless you’re a soldier), shouldn’t their opinion count for more than Jack Layton’s? Or the latest CBC pundit? Or a lefty troll with delusions of 60’s radical-chique grandeur?
ann: “‘I’m not a soldier, so I can have no opinion on the Iraq War.’ LOGIC, people!!!! The chicken-hawk tag is such a lame, unthinking insult.
Nevermind that Kate is the one calling Bill Adorlino a chickenhawk. You’re mistaking the meaning of and intention behind the term. It isn’t so much aimed at civilians who merely have a (positive) opinion of war as it is aimed at politicians and others in power who, from the comfort of their plush offices, make seemingly rash decisions to send others into war without themselves ever having served in uniform (and in some cases having intentionally avoided serving during their younger eligible years).
“(and in some cases having intentionally avoided serving during their younger eligible years).”
Like Bill Clinton. Dodged the draft so well that he even dodged the charge of dodging.
Still bombed Kosovo to pieces, for something a less drastic than gassing Kurds, trying to assassinate a former U.S. president, defying UN conventions, starving his own people in the “oil for food” scandal, etc. etc.
Bush flew many hours in a fighter jet. That accomplishment alone earned him the respect of many men in uniform, respect that you could never understand. The jet he flew was hard to handle, and killed people in training flights. Pilots who got behind those controls were considered brave just for getting in the cockpit.
You wouldn’t have passed one of the questions in the flight examinations Bush had to pass, and you wouldn’t even know how to open up the cockpit of the jet he flew.
Read some military blogs and you might get a measure of the respect military men and women have for the man. But probably not . . . you just won’t understand it.
So that’s my blurb about the man you obviously meant to point to the most when you wrote about chicken-hawk politicians sending people off to war.
I know, I know. I fed the troll. I’ll stop now.
The term “chickenhawk” is being thrown around at anybody who happens to think it is necessary to win the war in Afghanistan and/or Iraq. I think that Kate’s use of it in the case of blogger Bill Ardolino was intended to be sarcastic, given his presence with the Marines in Fallujah.
Thankyou, Belisarius for stating the blatantly obvious. For those with a brain, at least.
AS a citizen, one can have an opinion about politics. As a taxpayer, an opinion on education and medicare, roads. As a human being, religion. In fact, anyone can have, and is free to express, opinions about anything under the sun. That doesn’t mean that all opinions are worthy of respect.
LOGIC, Ann, apply some!!
“LOGIC, Ann, apply some!! ”
O.K. then . . .
Manny calls people “chicken-hawks” simply because they are not soldiers, yet have good opinions for supporting the Iraq War.
Manny then says “as a citizen, one can have an opinion . . . about anything under the sun.”
Manny then says “not all opinions are worthy of respect” — fair enough, but that does not take away from the sheer unthinking lameness of calling someone a chicken-hawk simply for having an opinion on the Iraq War, even though he/she isn’t a soldier.
Conclusion: Manny is an unthinking, lame name-caller whose opinions are not worthy of respect.
Manny also seems to have forgotten, if he ever knew, that we have a VOLUNTEER military here.
Quoth Manny: “If you’re too old, why don’t you send your children???”
Nobody gets sent anywhere Manny. They ask to go, and they have to hustle even to get on the list.
If I had a kid who asked to go, I’d bend Heaven and Earth to talk them out of it. Because war, as they say, is hell. Nobody wants their kid in hell, and frankly there’s not much to love about this country right now. To many Mannys.
However if he or she said they were going anyway, I’d kit them out with the best gear available and worry away liver cells until they got back.
CPC politicians recognize this and are buying the best available kit as fast as they can, given the obscene bureaucracy involved. Not fast enough, given our casualty rate.
As opposed to the Liberal Party, who sent men into combat with worn out vehicles, no air support and the wrong colour uniforms.
Either way our guys are going, with what logistic support is the only issue.
I’m sure my feeling on the issue is shared by most SDA commenters. Who do you think you’re talking to here, Manny? Idiots? Chickens?
Wrongo, bub.
And incidentally, while you may not be on Osama’s side, he is definitely on yours. Said so from beyond the grave by Muppet TV. How’s that feel?