Alpine Summit

Friday, September 09, 2005

Chickenbeavers?

LGF linked to this great perspective on the "chickenhawk" mantra you hear from the left about those who are for the war (hawkish), but won't sign up to be put in harms way (chicken). Yeah, clever. Anyway, those same people are now saying how we should have more troops in New Orleans and elsewhere to help with the relief. Done With Mirrors turns it around on those people.

So let's keep playing chickenhawk; let's apply it to another situation. "Don't advocate government actions that will involve sacrifice unless you're also putting yourself directly in the place of those who may be asked to sacrifice."

Don't call for more government action to help the poor people stranded in New Orleans unless you drove down there as soon as you heard the news and personally waded through the sewage and took some of them out of the Superdome and into your home. (Not impossible, some college kids did it).

Don't call for better canal walls and levees in New Orleans unless you are willing to take two years and go down there personally and build them.

Don't call for a more aggressive FEMA unless you've put in a job application there. Don't call for a quicker and more effective use of U.S. military resources in the disaster zone unless you've spent the last two years encouraging healthy young men and women to enlist, and supporting the Defense Department budget.

Looks stupid to me, too, but put up or shut up, chickenbeaver! Hey, your game, not mine.

Awesome. One thing I've noticed from these sorts of lefties is that they absolutely despise the military and all it stands for (honor, duty, loyalty, and baths). It's because of that that their statement of "we support the troops, we want them home now" just doesn't fly with me.

You can't support someone if you disagree with what they're doing or what they've chosen. If you want them home when they voluntarily joined up and assumed the risks, you're saying you know what's better for them than they do- that doesn't seem very supportive to me. In fact, it's quite the opposite. I could see the point if our troops were 10, but they're not. Our troops are grown boys and girls and can make their own decisions. Nobody forced them to join the military and I'm quite sure they could be making far more money as civillians. To imply (or say) that they are somehow children incapable of personal decisions is not supportive; it's disrespectful at best, and downright derogatory at worst.

So let's see, you don't agree with their mission, you don't agree with their decisions, and you don't think they're capable of self-governance. So what, then, is it that you support about them?

Sorry, I got off on a tangent because my friend and I were talking about this the other day. As for this, I doubt any of those lefties will put up OR shut up. I'd prefer they do both, but I'll settle for one.

|