Men who support wars they wont fight themselves

#1
Back in the sixties in America there were two groups of young men that were widely known. Those that were drafted and supported the Vietnam war and those that didn't support the war and where they could dodged the draft.
There was much hot antagonism between those groups, but both groups could be seen to have honour. Being anti war can at times take quite as much balls as being for it.

But there was a third group. These were those young men who strongly supported the war but still dodged the draft themselves. They wanted others to fight the wars they supported but were not prepared to do so themselves. If there is honour in that position, I for one, can't find it.

Amongst those who refused to fight were virtually all the neo cons who now rule America and send others to fight wars. The Roves, The Cheneys and of course that draft dodger in chief, G. W. Bush.

Now when America is apparently locked in a Global War on Terror, in a supposed fight for its very existence against an International Islamic Jihad there are even more young men who at one and the same time, both strongly support the war but will not fight it themselves.
They listen to Hannity, O'Reilly and Rush Limburg, punch air and down Buds. and follow the war on youtube.
They are the bumper sticker warriors.
What they don't do is fight.

Only 2% of those of military age in America are carrying the burden for all the rest.
I'll be back with some links in a mo.
 
#3
Below is the link to the original article in the right wing neo con house journal 'The Weekly Standard'.
The article is written by a neo con war supporter who has never served for the benefit of other neo con non serving war supporters.

http://weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/013/904pffgs.asp


and this, with link below to Salon is G. Greenwalds take on the matter
The Weekly Standard's "9/11 Generation"

This week's issue of The Weekly Standard features a cover story by Hugh Hewitt by Dean Barnett. Entitled "The 9/11 Generation," it argues that America's current youthful generation is courageous and noble because it has answered the call of military service, in contrast to the cowardly Vietnam era baby boomers who chose protest instead. The article is being hailed in all of the predictable right-wing precincts, even though its reasoning highlights (unintentionally) exactly what is so corrupt, ignoble and deceitful about that political movement.
In this regard, the "9/11 Generation" is no different than its predecessor. One group is comprised of an extremely small percentage of young Americans who volunteer to fight in combat. Contrary to Barnett's attempt to hold them up as the symbolic prop of the "9/11 Generation," they actually represent a tiny percentage of Americans in this age group. A far larger percentage of young Americans fought in the Vietnam war than have fought in the 9/11 era.
Then there is the much larger percentage of young Americans who vigorously oppose the 9/11-era warmongering. And finally there is the tragically sizable portion -- much larger than was true for the hated "baby boomer" generation -- characterized by that most contemptible attribute: vocal war cheerleading and a self-image of resolute strength combined with a refusal to fight, even though the war missions they cheer on are suffering due to a lack of volunteers.

Contrary to the military heroism with which Barnett tries to cloak his political movement, it is this lowliest group -- Digby's "empty boys," the war cheerleaders who send others to fight in their wars -- which has led the country for the last six militarized years; which publishes the Weekly Standard and edits National Review and broadcasts the radio show of Barnett's boss; which comprises virtually the entirety of the leadership of the right-wing movement; and which has been responsible for the series of liberty-abridging policies implemented, the wars the U.S. has fought, and the new ones it threatens to fight, ever since the 9/11 attacks. The political movement of which Barnett is a part and off of which The Weekly Standard feeds is led by the very group of Vietnam-era baby boomers who failed "to answer the phone" and, worse, who hid under the bed while striking poses of warrior greatness.
And here are the stats:

There are currently 41.9 million Americans (.pdf) who are between the ages of 18-29 -- the "9/11 Generation." And according to the CIA, there are roughly 108 million Americans "fit for military service" -- 54 million males and 54 million females who, as the CIA defines it, are able-bodied and between the ages of 18-49.
But the total number (.pdf) on active duty in American's armed services in 2007 only totaled roughly 1.4 million.
Thus, a meager 1% of the total number of Americans fit for military service -- and less than 1/3 of 1% of the total number of Americans -- actually serve in the armed forces.
Moreover, roughly 60% (.pdf) of those in the armed forces are in the 18-29 age group, which means that 800,000 out of the 41 million Americans in this 9/11 Generation -- i.e., 2% -- have "answered the call" by volunteering to fight in the Epic War of Civilization against the Existential Islamofascism Threat.

Thus, 98% of the "9/11 Generation" in America refuses to serve. It is a redundancy to say so, but nonetheless, the Weekly Standard cover story is a fraud.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/07/23/911_generation/index.html
 
#4
Yeah, we know and have done for the past six years. Where the Hell have you been and what have you been doing for this to come as any sort of revelation to you?
 
#5
crabtastic said:
Yeah, we know and have done for the past six years. Where the Hell have you been and what have you been doing for this to come as any sort of revelation to you?
The article in the Weekly Standard was only published a couple of days ago. Don't assume I'm behind on the curve crab.
Its you who are the one who believes congress can hold the president back not me sonny.
Homework for you. Check out 'unitary executive theory'.
 
#6
goodkurtz said:
Back in the sixties in America there were two groups of young men that were widely known. Those that were drafted and supported the Vietnam war and those that didn't support the war and where they could dodged the draft.
There was much hot antagonism between those groups, but both groups could be seen to have honour. Being anti war can at times take quite as much balls as being for it.

But there was a third group. These were those young men who strongly supported the war but still dodged the draft themselves. They wanted others to fight the wars they supported but were not prepared to do so themselves. If there is honour in that position, I for one, can't find it.

Amongst those who refused to fight were virtually all the neo cons who now rule America and send others to fight wars. The Roves, The Cheneys and of course that draft dodger in chief, G. W. Bush.

Now when America is apparently locked in a Global War on Terror, in a supposed fight for its very existence against an International Islamic Jihad there are even more young men who at one and the same time, both strongly support the war but will not fight it themselves.
They listen to Hannity, O'Reilly and Rush Limburg, punch air and down Buds. and follow the war on youtube.
They are the bumper sticker warriors.
What they don't do is fight.

Only 2% of those of military age in America are carrying the burden for all the rest.
I'll be back with some links in a mo.
Spot on. I agree totally with your post, but I've emboldened what I think are two relevant words.

The aims of this war are impossible and illogical. Smoking out terrorists, wherever they may be. It's purely Orwellian in nature, in that it's grounded in propaganda. The message is everything and it's fuelled by twisted Neo Con patriotism or illogical rhetoric (if you're not with us, you're against us - cheers George W).

There's no clear or solid vision of the enemy - just the vague and shifting picture painted in the governments' propaganda sheets, TV and media. No satisfactory description of Al Qaeda, save for sketchy reports, sightings and recordings of henchmen, or the framing of local criminals that seem to fit the bill. In other words, it's the ideal situation for false information and for friendly forces' secret services to fill in the blanks with lies and distortions.

The whole thing is a sad mock up and a smokescreen for NeoCon imperialism, or the cynical flexing of corporate muscle, and the sooner it's over, we can get back to fighting real wars - WHEN ATTACKED, and not invading on false prospectuses with hidden agendas, and squandering innocent lives, whether our own soldiers or foreign civilians in the line of fire.
 
#7
goodkurtz said:
crabtastic said:
Yeah, we know and have done for the past six years. Where the Hell have you been and what have you been doing for this to come as any sort of revelation to you?
The article in the Weekly Standard was only published a couple of days ago. Don't assume I'm behind on the curve crab.
Its you who are the one who believes congress can hold the president back not me sonny.
Homework for you. Check out 'unitary executive theory'.
Listen in, my old mukka.

It seems to me that you're a paranoid conspiracy theorist who just likes making noise for the sake of making noise. Like Michael Moore, you're a blowhard who gives liberalism a bad name.

What you are missing is that neo-conservatism has been put back in its box. Hardly anyone in the US takes them seriously any more since their overly simplistic ideas have been shown to be deeply, deeply flawed and widely discredited. There's nowhere for them to go. Iran isn't going to happen. Whatever bravado which still emerges from the administration is directed to one purpose only, to keep the war going long enough for someone else to take the grown-up decision to end it. Among the chattering classes that still believe in the cause (and I include those who write in the Weekly Standard) what you're seeing is an attempt at a rearguard action.

What you're seeing in this article is a crude attempt to form a narrative of the noble cause let down by liberals, much like they did after Vietnam. Right now though, nobody's buying it because the chickenhawk narrative is already well established. In 20 years or so (that seems to be their cycle- late 50s, late 70s, late 90s) they might re-emerge and try to use this narrative to mask their catacylsmic fcuk-up, but until then I've got better things to worry about.

I'm not going to address the EO question because it's the subject of another thread, but I'd be happy to meet you over there to discuss it further if I thought for a second you'd be interested in listening to what anyone else has to say. I could bring 6 years of teaching foreign and security policy classes. You could bring whatever talking points you picked up on the blogosphere. I'd happily explain what all the big words mean. Take it from one who knows how to spot a bullshitter, you're nowhere near as clever as you think you are.
 
#9
We're not immune from such people either...well known folk singer and Communist / Anti-Nazi Ewan MacColl (father of Kirsty) deserted from the British Army in 1940.

He was extremely outspoken about the evils of facism and right wing politics in general but he too preferred to let others do the actual fighting and dying - this at a time when our country was undeniably in grave danger...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ewan_MacColl#Early_history
 
#11
legal_eagle said:
We're not immune from such people either...well known folk singer and Communist / Anti-Nazi Ewan MacColl (father of Kirsty) deserted from the British Army in 1940.

He was extremely outspoken about the evils of facism and right wing politics in general but he too preferred to let others do the actual fighting and dying - this at a time when our country was undeniably in grave danger...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ewan_MacColl#Early_history
Thanks for the link. But I don't agree. The man who penned Dirty Old Town is for me, beyond criticism - whereas MI5 with their McCarthyite, disgusting bully-boy tactics are not.

I should add that McColl had political reasons for doing what he did and obviously disagreed with it at the time. Looking back it may be easy to criticise, but history has been massaged somewhat by Churchill and others since.

He is therefore not in the same bracket as Bush, Cheney and other miserable lowlife.
 
#12
a commie folk singer probably what ever unit he was in was glad to see the back of him in 1940 uncle joe was still pally with adolf :(
 

cpunk

LE
Moderator
#13
frenchperson said:
It's purely Orwellian in nature, in that it's grounded in propaganda. The message is everything and it's fuelled by twisted Neo Con patriotism or illogical rhetoric (if you're not with us, you're against us - cheers George W)...
And...

frenchperson said:
The whole thing is a sad mock up and a smokescreen for NeoCon imperialism, or the cynical flexing of corporate muscle, and the sooner it's over, we can get back to fighting real wars - WHEN ATTACKED, and not invading on false prospectuses with hidden agendas, and squandering innocent lives, whether our own soldiers or foreign civilians in the line of fire.
That's not quite true, is it, unless, like you, we live in such a state of paranoia that we believe that 9/11 and other such terrorist atrocities were actually the work of the US Government.
 
#14
Thus, 98% of the "9/11 Generation" in America refuses to serve.
That statement amounts to lies, lies and statistics.

The last time I checked the news America had a professional, volunteer army, navy and airforce. If the draft were introduced today and 98% refused then those figures would be accurate. As I understant it the current administration is trying to increase the numbers in the military. Are they getting zero increase in voluteers above the usual requirement?

Lets look at it from another point of view. Who will produce the food, clothing, weapons, ammunition, fuel, steel, aluminium, copper, carbon fibre, ships, shells, rockets, bombs, cruise missiles etc, etc, etc that a nation needs to fight if everyone is in uniform?

How many of those 98% are disabled or not qualified? Perhaps some think that buy doing a job they are contributing to the economy so that America can indeed afford to fight these wars.

I'm not saying that everyone has an excuse nor am I condoning the Yeehaw, sock it to the Ay-rabs types as they sip their buds watching Fox TV, but those statistics are misleading and anyone with any analytical skill can see that they are not wholly true.

Your point about those shouting loudest for war but hiding behind those that do fight is a valid one, but there is no real need to use the poor example that you have done (unless it suits some personal/other agenda :wink: )

I very much doubt that the Neo-cons will ever be back in power in the good ole US of A seeing as how they have made one of the greatest FUs of all time and have run out of credibility.
 

Biped

LE
Book Reviewer
#16
crabtastic said:
goodkurtz said:
crabtastic said:
Yeah, we know and have done for the past six years. Where the Hell have you been and what have you been doing for this to come as any sort of revelation to you?
The article in the Weekly Standard was only published a couple of days ago. Don't assume I'm behind on the curve crab.
Its you who are the one who believes congress can hold the president back not me sonny.
Homework for you. Check out 'unitary executive theory'.
Listen in, my old mukka.

It seems to me that you're a paranoid conspiracy theorist who just likes making noise for the sake of making noise. Like Michael Moore, you're a blowhard who gives liberalism a bad name.

What you are missing is that neo-conservatism has been put back in its box. Hardly anyone in the US takes them seriously any more since their overly simplistic ideas have been shown to be deeply, deeply flawed and widely discredited. There's nowhere for them to go. Iran isn't going to happen. Whatever bravado which still emerges from the administration is directed to one purpose only, to keep the war going long enough for someone else to take the grown-up decision to end it. Among the chattering classes that still believe in the cause (and I include those who write in the Weekly Standard) what you're seeing is an attempt at a rearguard action.

What you're seeing in this article is a crude attempt to form a narrative of the noble cause let down by liberals, much like they did after Vietnam. Right now though, nobody's buying it because the chickenhawk narrative is already well established. In 20 years or so (that seems to be their cycle- late 50s, late 70s, late 90s) they might re-emerge and try to use this narrative to mask their catacylsmic fcuk-up, but until then I've got better things to worry about.

I'm not going to address the EO question because it's the subject of another thread, but I'd be happy to meet you over there to discuss it further if I thought for a second you'd be interested in listening to what anyone else has to say. I could bring 6 years of teaching foreign and security policy classes. You could bring whatever talking points you picked up on the blogosphere. I'd happily explain what all the big words mean. Take it from one who knows how to spot a bullshitter, you're nowhere near as clever as you think you are.
Could you elaborate please Crabby; I'm not sure I understand your message. 8O
 
#17
Dubya didn't go to Vietnam - so what? Many young men did, many didn't, some refused to serve at all. We should all know that young servicemen get very little choice about where they serve. The US public knew all about Dubya's war record but still chose him - that's democracy. The conspiracy theorist always overlook Bush Senior's good war record and the fact that many demcrat and republican politicians have distinguished war records.

How would we respond if some American got up and criticised the fact that our future King didn't do active duty despite wearing the uniform.

There is plenty to criticise GW Bush without this tosh!
 
#18
crabtastic said:
Yeah, we know and have done for the past six years. Where the Hell have you been and what have you been doing for this to come as any sort of revelation to you?
and


goodkurtz said:
...Its you who are the one who believes congress can hold the president back not me sonny.
Ooo, sonnyed by a septic,(?) impressed I am. :)
 
#19
The single common denominator between these American leaders is that they come from money. They constitute what could - just for a giggle - be called the USA's aristocracy. However for all the trappings, they have no nobility of purpose or spirit. As a result they are entirely fixated upon the trappings and less so on what the higher purposes in civilisation are.

Me on the other hand, busting to the gunnels with nobility and that sort of cod. However born one of life's yeomen, so what can you do? Just get on with carrying the load of those more fortunate, picking up the slack for the Euan Blairs and Bush twins of this world. born to serve and not to whinge about it. golly I imagine that it was precisely this sort of whinging that brought the Roman empire into its decadence, instead of just getting on with it.
 
#20
brighton hippy said:
a commie folk singer probably what ever unit he was in was glad to see the back of him in 1940 uncle joe was still pally with adolf :(
Until Hitler broke the pact in '41, then Russia made the biggest sacrifices and the largest single contribution towards defeating the Nazis.

Also, some have it that Stalin was preparing to invade Germany, before the Nazi Op. Barbarossa - which could have prevented what was to come.
 

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top