Thursday, January 11, 2007

Turn the tables: Go to Afghanistan, Chickenhawks!

As most of you already know, the leftards' favorite rhetorical weapon (the equivalent of a peashooter) is the "chickenhawk" slur/logical fallacy. You know, the one that says you can't support soldiers without being one? Like I can't support police efforts to catch criminals unless I am a cop, or I can't support teachers' attempts to educate kids unless I am a teacher, or I can't support the Jaguars unless I play for them? Anywho, you get the drift.

Well, normally I wouldn't even bother playing "let's get THEM with the 'chickenhawk' tag", since it's rhetorically empty regardless of WHO is lobbing the accusation. However, in this one case, I think Ace makes a compelling argument to shut these leftard nitwits up. Not that it will work, mind you, since they're oblivious to facts and logic anyway, preferring to live in an "I'm not listening, neener-neener!" fantasy land. But here it is:
Here's a link to Right Wing News, quoting the Sybil of the Intertubes:
"As a result, it is now morally indefensible for those who are physically able to do so to advocate a "surge," or even ongoing war in Iraq, without either volunteering to fight or offering a good reason why they are not doing so."
I have asked this a thousand times, and don't expect an answer this time, either.

But I'll give it the ol' college try.

If "reasonable lefties" like Greenwald claim to support the War in Afghanistan, which they also claim is going to hell in a handbasket, why on earth do they not feel compelled to enlist in order to fight in that war, a war which they (supposedly) support?

Chickenhawk? You mean supporting a war you're not offering to actually fight in?

Get thee to Afghanistan, boys.

Or do you have "other priorities" that prevent you from risking your soft white asses to support wars you claim to wish to win?

Letting poor, uneducated black kids and no-account rural whites fight in your place while you conduct CyOps in the 69th Chairborne Rangers/101st Fightin' Keyboardist brigade?

Tut, tut.

There will be no answer to this question, as there is no answer to this question. Excpet, of course, for some sort of idiotic semantic ipse dixit about which wars one is required to fight in in order to have the moral authority to support.

Now, the thing is-- I know Greenwald et al. really don't support the war in Afghanistan, either, and never have.

But they pretend to, in order to keep somewhere within the bounds of reasonable opinion.

So you tell me what's worse. Greenwald claims to support a war -- resulting in the deaths of quite a few Americans -- he actually doesn't support at all.
Here is the recruitment link you've all been desperately searching for these past five years. I know it's hard to find; I took a wild guess at "" and by jimminy found it on my first shot.

Now that I've found that recruitment link you've all been so madly googling hither and yon for since 9/11, I imagine I'll be seeing you in full camos within the month.

How many times have you each asserted you were just gung-ho kill-crazy to fight you some terrorists -- real terrorists, Al Qaeda terrorists, the ones actually responsible for 9/11? How many times have you caterwauled we don't have enough troops in Afghanistan to finally get the man you so viscerally hate, Osama bin Ladin?

Osama bin Forgotten? Seems to me you guys have kinda forgotten about him your own selves. Because I have some little-known intel for ya -- he's in the mountains of Northwest Pakistan, just over the border from Afghanistan.

And if you guys want to get the "real terrorists" -- well, seems to me that's the place for you!

Don't be Chickenhawks.

There's fighting in Afghanistan to be done, we need more troops there -- especially world-class tough-guys and super-patriotic American heroes such as yoursleves -- and since you've all lectured us so many times on how that war must be won (redeploy our Iraq troops to the Pakistani border!), I'm sure you will, like the Rangers I know you are deep inside, Lead the Way.
FYI, Glenn Greenwald is a leftie blogger who has posted under multiple personalities to defend his initial personality, a condition that most would agree needs to be addressed by a competent physician (hence the "Sybil of the Intertubes" reference). Anywho, continuing:
Prebutting The First Idiotic Semantic Ipse Dixit:

"But Afghanistan is a war of necessity, while Iraq is a war of mere choice!!! That's why we don't need to fight in Afghanistan to (pretend to) support that war!"

Ummm... so you're telling me that if a war is one of absolute necessity, that makes it less important for you to support it by actually fighting in it?

Really? Just like elective surgery comes before emergency surgery in medical triage, right?

Expect the rest of the responses to be at this level of sophistic cretinism.

Oh, wait: No, don't expect any responses. They have no responses to this, so they just sort of ignore the question.
Yes, "they just sort of ignore the question." They always do, when truth, facts, common sense, and logic breathe in their faces heavier than Mikie Moore getting off a treadmill.

Look, I still think the argument is stupider than Maxine "Solomon Barney Frank" Waters. But if the leftards insist on using it, I would submit that it is fair game to b!tchslap them right back with this.