ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2016 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Tuesday, March 15, 2016

The past as prediction

For those of you who are disappointed by Ben Shapiro's recent behavior vis-a-vis Breitbart and Donald Trump, don't be. That's always who he has been. Notice the date on this WND column, published on August 29, 2005.
The Chickenhawk Clucks

It is entirely possible that my WND colleague has a perfectly good reason for not serving his country in its moment of need. For all I know, he may have a weak heart, a wooden leg, a predilection for San Francisco bathhouse sex, or some other condition that prevents him from joining the military. But devoting two columns to criticizing a single word strikes me as a lady protesting a bit too much.

Mr. Shapiro's first argument against the appellation is that it is nothing more than a leftist attempt to silence debate. This is partially true, but the argument is deceptive because it is incomplete. It is not leftists, but the military, who have long despised the civilians who clamor for war from the safety of their homes. In 1879, Gen. William Sherman said: "It is only those who have neither fired a shot nor heard the shrieks and groans of the wounded who cry aloud for blood, more vengeance, more desolation."

His second and third arguments are that the insult is dishonest and "explicitly rejects the Constitution." But there is nothing dishonest about calling into question the credibility of one who does not practice what he preaches. If a CNBC analyst urges viewers to buy a stock he is secretly shorting, he will rightly be dismissed as a hypocrite unworthy of further regard. The unconstitutional argument is spectacularly silly, since no one in Congress has proposed a federal law barring such hypocrites from office. One can only assume that Mr. Shapiro's first Constitutional Law class lies ahead of him.

His fourth argument, which asserts that use of the term is somehow "un-American," reveals a similar failure to understand the First Amendment and American history. Mr. Shapiro might wish the Constitution prevented people from calling him names, but it actually protects their right to do so and American political history is littered with an abundance of inventive insults. As for the reference to the Bush daughters, hiding behind the skirts of young women is no way to prove you're not a coward.

His fifth and final argument - that use of the term "chickenhawk" is an attempt to avoid substantive debate - is easily disproved. I have repeatedly criticized numerous aspects of this global struggle, have openly opposed both the Iraqi and Afghani occupations, and am quite willing to debate Mr. Shapiro or anyone else on the issue in the forum of their preference. Yet I - like 62 percent of the soldiers and veterans who frequent Vox Popoli and Blackfive - am in accord with the notion that "chickenhawk" is an appropriate label for a warmongering young columnist who urges others to make sacrifices he has no intention of making himself.
Most of us realize that during wartime, sacrifices must be made ... But taking such a stand requires common sense and the knowledge that we are in the midst of the great battle of our time.
- Benjamin Shapiro, WorldNetDaily, July 28, 2005
I would be remiss if I did not note that many of these military men and women favored a different 11-letter word that also begins with "chicken."

The genuine flaw in the use of the "chickenhawk" label is that in most cases it is being applied years, even decades, after the fact, and inherently attempts to equate two different historical situations. However, due to Mr. Shapiro's precocious position in the national media, this common flaw does not apply. While his peers are dodging sniper bullets and IEDs in Afghanistan and Iraq, Mr. Shapiro is bravely urging them to invade five more countries in the establishment of global empire from the safety of his Harvard dorm room.
Did Iraq pose an immediate threat to our nation? Perhaps not. But toppling Saddam Hussein and democratizing Iraq prevent his future ascendance and end his material support for future threats globally. The same principle holds true for Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Egypt, Pakistan and others: Pre-emption is the chief weapon of a global empire. No one said empire was easy, but it is right and good, both for Americans and for the world.
- Benjamin Shapiro, WorldNetDaily, Aug. 11, 2005
The America Bar Association already boasts more than 896,000 lawyers, America has no desperate need for another one. The U.S. Army, on the other hand, is currently 8,000 men short of its 2005 recruiting goals. I am only one of many non-pacifist, non-leftist Americans who believe that Mr. Shapiro would do well to heed his own words of Aug. 26, 2004. "Now's the time: Either put up, or shut the hell up."

Labels: ,

107 Comments:

Blogger Salt March 15, 2016 2:22 PM  

His new Twitter bio - where he now roosts

Editor-in-Chief http://DailyWire.com , syndicated columnist, host of The Ben Shapiro Show, radio host on KRLA and KTIE, NYT bestselling author

Anonymous HongKongCharlie March 15, 2016 2:23 PM  

After the first couple articles when Mr. Shapiro ventured on the scene, I haven't tried stomaching anything else he's written.

HKC

Anonymous karsten March 15, 2016 2:26 PM  

Like all his tribe, Shapiro operates based on one metric, and one alone:

Is it good for the Jews?

Everything else is a smokescreen.

Anonymous Sam the Man March 15, 2016 2:33 PM  

Ouch...........If he reads it that has to hurt.........because it is true.

Anonymous patrick kelly March 15, 2016 2:36 PM  

"No one said empire was easy, but it is right and good, both for Americans and for the world. "

Yikes, he really wrote this?

History is proving him wrong.

Blogger Sheila4g March 15, 2016 2:38 PM  

I had never read that column (although I first came across you at WND). Brilliantly and bitingly written. I will never again think of him as other than the littlest chickenhawk.

Blogger White Knight Leo #0368 March 15, 2016 2:41 PM  

Looking back now, I wish I had enlisted back when Bush was Pres. He was still in office when I graduated high school, so it was do-able, but I was a liberal at the time, so no dice. No chance while Obama is still President though. Nor if Hillary or Sanders wins.

Blogger Ahazuerus March 15, 2016 2:43 PM  

"No one said empire was easy, but it is right and good, both for Americans and for the world."

There's nothing at all conservative about that sentence. A liar and a murderer from the beginning.

Anonymous Quartermaster March 15, 2016 2:44 PM  

I remember that column. My son was in Iraq at the time.

Jonah Goldberg was agitating for more war as well. I had little use for either Chickenhawk.

Blogger tz March 15, 2016 2:44 PM  

I linked to this very same article at the Last Refuge (theconservativetreehouse.com) when someone asked what a chickenhawk was, and enjoyed the reread. Timeless truth.

B.S. is such a clucky cucky.

Blogger White Knight Leo #0368 March 15, 2016 2:45 PM  

No one said empire was easy, but it is right and good, both for Americans and for the world.

.... Holy shit, I've never seen this column before. Shapiro wrote this? Wow. I actually enjoyed reading his stuff sometimes, but this is quite the eye-opener.

Blogger James Dixon March 15, 2016 2:49 PM  

> Looking back now, I wish I had enlisted back when Bush was Pres.

Administrations come and go, and if you serve you'll often cross them in the process. The correct question isn't whether a particular President is worth serving under, but whether or government itself is. Since at least the Korean War, I'd have to argue no. It's been obvious that no one in power in our government(with the possible exception of Reagan) has understood what it really means to send men into combat since WWII.

Blogger Sam Lively March 15, 2016 2:55 PM  

I gave Shapiro something of a pass for being a neocon zealot in his youth after rediscovering him a few years ago on the radio and finding him much more sober in his reasoning. Then that Zoey Tur showdown sold me on him. Modeled a lot of Vox's principles - called Tur on his BS, didn't back down, didn't apologize.

But man he regressed hard these last few months. Erased a lot of incremental growth.

Blogger tz March 15, 2016 2:57 PM  

Speaking of looney tunes, There is a resemblance

Blogger Anchorman March 15, 2016 2:57 PM  

But man he regressed hard these last few months. Erased a lot of incremental growth.

The events reveal the man.

Blogger Tom K. March 15, 2016 3:01 PM  

I had hopes my son would enlist like I did. He used to talk about going into the Marines. Bush would have been president when he went in but Obama would have replaced him in just three years. I tend to be grateful he didn't go in but I think his life would be better if he had.

The military is a great way to start your adult life.

Blogger Tom K. March 15, 2016 3:04 PM  

"No one said empire was easy, but it is right and good, both for Americans and for the world."

Because America is so completely morally superior and her leaders more noble than any others.

/sarcasmsign

Blogger Thomas Davidsmeier March 15, 2016 3:13 PM  

I remember when I used to think that the opponents to that war's argument that you couldn't "democratize" Iraq was so racis and therefore totally wrong. Sigh.

Blogger White Knight Leo #0368 March 15, 2016 3:14 PM  

@12

That isn't my reason, actually. I'd be comfortable serving under a President who wouldn't be moved by media accusations of being a warmonger. Such leaders are quite prone to making poor decisions re: foreign policy, especially with military actions.

Bush wasn't bothered by such accusations, and neither would Trump or Cruz be (I no longer think Rubio CAN win, and if the RNC somehow stops Cruz or Trump from being the nominee via brokered convention, the GOP won't win anyway). So if they chose to intervene, there wouldn't be any liberal concerns about actually sending a useful-sized force as being "too provocative".

Basically I can see Hillary actually doing to a regular military unit what she did to the Benghazi guys, only worse: ordering them into the field, and then not giving them enough firepower to actually accomplish their objectives.

Blogger Tom K. March 15, 2016 3:16 PM  

"No one said empire was easy, but it is right and good, both for Americans and for the world."

Because America is so completely morally superior and her leaders more noble than any others.

/sarcasmsign

Blogger Lew Rand March 15, 2016 3:36 PM  

Basically I can see Hillary actually doing to a regular military unit what she did to the Benghazi guys, only worse: ordering them into the field, and then not giving them enough firepower to actually accomplish their objectives.

I first thought of Somalia 1993 (go Bill) but that wasn't exactly like that (but it sure seems to rhyme).

My poor mind remembers another incident in Clinton's reign where they had to sacrifice a whole unit due to lack of supplies, but that may just be faulty memory of Mogadishu.

Blogger Miguel D'Anconia March 15, 2016 3:36 PM  

Shocking how the zionists are more than willing to sacrifice someone else or somebody else's children. F them.

Where do the jews think they'll go when they wear out their welcome here in America (which they're working really hard on doing)?

Blogger White Knight Leo #0368 March 15, 2016 3:42 PM  

@21

More like JFK holding back the air support in the Bay of Pigs invasion (or so I read).

Blogger dc.sunsets March 15, 2016 3:43 PM  

It's been obvious that no one in power in our government(with the possible exception of Reagan) has understood what it really means to send men into combat since WWII.

You can go back a lot further than that, depending on your premises.

I used to say that if the politicians won't send their own kids to the front lines, the war ain't worth mine either.

I now realize that democracy promotes sociopathy so well that you absolutely can have rulers who would murder their own offspring in order to hold the reins of power.

I'm very interested to understand how others here determine when politicians declaring war do so with the national interest at heart, and when it's just a cynical game in which military volunteers serve as no more than pawns?

National interest? Patriot.
Cynical game? Pawn.

Blogger dc.sunsets March 15, 2016 3:46 PM  

Maybe the USA will finish this antebellum period and during the next epoch we'll hold political rulers to an actual standard.

I have in mind that the parents of sons sent to fight and die in useless wars of political intrigue seek out said politicians and slit their throats.

Blogger Ron March 15, 2016 3:48 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger dc.sunsets March 15, 2016 3:48 PM  

Add chickenhawks to the menu. Perhaps I err in my idealism when I long for a world where ideas have consequences, memories are long and chickens come home to roost.

Blogger Stg58/Animal Mother March 15, 2016 3:56 PM  

I forgot about these columns. What a piece of shit.

Anonymous BGKB March 15, 2016 3:56 PM  

Shapiro is just mad because he knows the gay definition of the word, and how it applies to him.

Tom K The military is a great way to start your adult life.

Do you still think that now that male troops wear high heals and men can show with women?
http://cnsnews.com/blog/michael-w-chapman/lt-gen-boykin-first-transgender-man-enters-my-daughters-bathroom-he-wont-have

Given todays rules of engagement I might tell people to join the Air Farce for college money, and to purposely fail the DLAB to keep from being recruited to unconstitutional jobs.

Blogger Arthur Isaac March 15, 2016 3:56 PM  

He seems mighty unapologetic for a true cuckservative. Maybe he is a hypocrite.

Anonymous BGKB March 15, 2016 3:57 PM  

sorry heels /shower

Anonymous FitzRobert March 15, 2016 4:11 PM  

Mea culpa.

I was USMC infantry during the first Gulf shindig. I supported the second, and President Bush. Much to my shame.

Starting with Iraq, we have systematically destroyed or attempted to destroy any functioning Arab state with the exception of a couple of our puppets. The only beneficiary of our Middle East adventurism has been Israel.

Anyway, (((Shapiro))) was just singing his true nation's favorite hymn, "Onward Christian Soldiers."

Anonymous Quartermaster March 15, 2016 4:13 PM  

I tell kids to stay away from the military. Far away. It has been taken over by PC idiocy and adding women to combat units is a good way to get a lot of men killed and lose wars.

Chickenhawks are terrible to eat. They are tough and stringy from quaking in fear.

Blogger Scott6584 March 15, 2016 4:19 PM  

The "chicken hawk" is inherently stupid. I served in the Army, and my son is a Lieutenant in the Army right now, so don't go off on me for being unwilling to serve.

Using the term "Chicken-Hawk" is an ad hominem attempt to disqualify the argument based on the person making the argument. That is a logical fallacy.

Having said that, I wrote a letter to the White House in September of 2002 opposing the invasion of Iraq. I never thought the WMD argument was valid. The one valid argument that made sense to me was the one that said fighting them "over there" was better than fighting them at home.

The reality is that the invasion of Iraq killed A LOT of terrorists, who flocked to Iraq only to be killed by our troops there. It may have bought us 10-20 years before having to fight on our own soil. And if Obama had not pulled out, it could have become like South Korea, a foothold in the region which provides a base of operations to oppose Jihadism in their region instead of our own. The pullout has resulted in the current Islamic invasion of Europe, and the attempt by Obama to include America in that invasion.

But the BIG PROBLEM is that Bush et all refused, and still refuses to acknowledge that Islam itself is the issue. They allowed LEGAL immigration of far, far too many Muslims, which is going to have to be reversed.

The problems with the invasion of Iraq are 1) it was justified wrongly on WMD (there were WMD found, but it doesn't matter), and 2) It was a half-measure that didn't go far enough, and 3) whatever gains were made were forfeited by Obama, and the arrogance of the left.

I've said for years, and I think most Americans, and most military veterans would agree. If you are going to do war, do it all the way. That means complete domination and subjugation of the other nation. If you're not willing to do that, then don't go to war. Oh, and 4) shoot the lawyers and journalists.

Blogger Dire Badger March 15, 2016 4:25 PM  

Heh, make presidency a punishment.
Instead of life imprisonment, you are fitted with an explosive collar. Every citizen has a 'kill box' with a red button. If at any time more than 10% of the population chooses to push the red button, BOOM!

Blogger Noah B March 15, 2016 4:28 PM  

Classic. Hard to believe that was more than ten years ago.

Anonymous Michael Maier March 15, 2016 4:35 PM  

White Knight Leo #0368 March 15, 2016 3:14 PM
@12

That isn't my reason, actually. I'd be comfortable serving under a President who wouldn't be moved by media accusations of being a warmonger. Such leaders are quite prone to making poor decisions re: foreign policy, especially with military actions.

Bush wasn't bothered by such accusations, and neither would Trump or Cruz be (I no longer think Rubio CAN win, and if the RNC somehow stops Cruz or Trump from being the nominee via brokered convention, the GOP won't win anyway). So if they chose to intervene, there wouldn't be any liberal concerns about actually sending a useful-sized force as being "too provocative".

Basically I can see Hillary actually doing to a regular military unit what she did to the Benghazi guys, only worse: ordering them into the field, and then not giving them enough firepower to actually accomplish their objectives.



Please, Hillary and Obama didn't invent that.

Reagan: Beirut, 200+ Dead Marines for no good reason. Sitting ducks in a city that wanted them - AND GOT THEM - gone.

Blogger James Dixon March 15, 2016 4:36 PM  

> Using the term "Chicken-Hawk" is an ad hominem attempt to disqualify the argument based on the person making the argument. That is a logical fallacy.

No. It's an insult, and in this case a demonstrably correct one. The refutation of the argument is entirely another matter.

Blogger Scott6584 March 15, 2016 4:41 PM  

James Dixon wrote:> Using the term "Chicken-Hawk" is an ad hominem attempt to disqualify the argument based on the person making the argument. That is a logical fallacy.

No. It's an insult, and in this case a demonstrably correct one. The refutation of the argument is entirely another matter.


I think you just made my point.

Blogger Student in Blue March 15, 2016 4:43 PM  

Ad Hom: You're an idiot and your point is disqualified due to it.

Insult: You're an idiot. Here's XYZ why you're wrong.

Not Ad Hom but not even an argument: You're an idiot and you're wrong.

Blogger James Dixon March 15, 2016 4:45 PM  

> I think you just made my point.

You think incorrectly.

Blogger Big Easy March 15, 2016 4:46 PM  

You gotta give him his props where it's due. From 2011
The Magic of Donald Trump http://townhall.com/columnists/benshapiro/2011/04/13/the_magic_of_donald_trump/page/full tinyurl.com/hmwb7e6

Anonymous Laz March 15, 2016 4:48 PM  

"I tell kids to stay away from the military. Far away. It has been taken over by PC idiocy and adding women to combat units is a good way to get a lot of men killed and lose wars."

Everybody I know who has gotten out of the Army in the last 10 years has said the officer core is ate up with incompetent blacks and women.

Blogger Student in Blue March 15, 2016 4:52 PM  

Everybody I know who has gotten out of the Army in the last 10 years has said the officer core is ate up with incompetent blacks and women.

More immediately it's getting ate up with SJW radfem nonsense, especially with constant SHARP training.

Blogger CarpeOro March 15, 2016 4:53 PM  

Scott6584 wrote:James Dixon wrote:> Using the term "Chicken-Hawk" is an ad hominem attempt to disqualify the argument based on the person making the argument. That is a logical fallacy.

No. It's an insult, and in this case a demonstrably correct one. The refutation of the argument is entirely another matter.


I think you just made my point.


I'd simply say it is an accurate description of someone that clamors for others to put their lives at risk when they are capable but unwilling to take the same risk.

I was once asked "why don't you join the military" in college where I was known for my so-called conservative views. I promptly pulled out my reserve id and simply stated I was waiting on my OTS class start date. Shapiro will never be able to say the same thing. Period. All talk can just walk as far as I am concerned.

Blogger VD March 15, 2016 4:55 PM  

Using the term "Chicken-Hawk" is an ad hominem attempt to disqualify the argument based on the person making the argument. That is a logical fallacy.

No, Scott, it is not. You don't know what an argument is. You don't know what an ad hominem argument is. And you don't know what a logical fallacy is.

Now, I'm not going to to say you're stupid, but you are clearly ignorant with regards to matters of formal logic. Just stop. You are clearly in over your head.

Blogger Stg58/Animal Mother March 15, 2016 4:57 PM  

Chicken hawk is an accurate description, Scott. A Hawk, as we can see from Shapiro's writing, who is too chicken himself to do any fighting.

I thought the Army was sensitive but you're out of control

Blogger CarpeOro March 15, 2016 4:58 PM  

From http://www.sexualassault.army.mil/ProgMgr_Tng.cfm regarding documentation for SHARP:

"SHARP Knowledge Center (KC)

This site is for specific audience only and AKO login required. Please remember what you are downloading is FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY. What you are downloading is NOT FOR THE GENERAL PUBLIC TO VIEW AND DOWNLOAD. "

Makes you wonder what they don't want perspective recruits to read.

Anonymous kfg March 15, 2016 5:02 PM  

@34 Scott:

The article itself notes that the term chickenhawk is usually a logical fallacy, and goes on to explain why in this case it is not, but is accurately descriptive.

The premise, in case you lost track of it, is that Mr. Shapiro is a hypocrite. A particular kind of hypocrite characterized by the term "chickenhawk."

If the premise is true, than the term is correct.

It is not a logical fallacy, because the nature of the person making the argument is what is at issue.

Blogger Gaiseric March 15, 2016 5:03 PM  

Speaking of "conservative" media personalities doubling down, did you see the follow up to National Review's "white communities should die" article?

Blogger Gaiseric March 15, 2016 5:05 PM  

Speaking of "conservative" media personalities doubling down, did you see the follow up to National Review's "white communities should die" article?

Blogger Student in Blue March 15, 2016 5:06 PM  

@CarpeOro
Makes you wonder what they don't want perspective recruits to read.

The rant I could go on about SHARP... but here is not the place and time.

Anonymous Scott4869 March 15, 2016 5:09 PM  

How dare you all impugn my intelligence! I built a 2 story house in Dallas, I'll have you know!!!

Blogger Gaiseric March 15, 2016 5:11 PM  

http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2016/03/15/national-review-doubles-down-important-to-say-white-working-class-communities-deserve-to-die/

Anonymous Napoleon 12pdr March 15, 2016 5:14 PM  

I'm not too eager to throw around the "chickenhawk" accusation simply because the military does not need that many warm bodies...and many of the people they use are not in uniform. There's a large Civil Service and contractor support element handling engineering, depot-level maintenance, and other tasks that contribute to fighting power but don't require deploying.

What bothers me more are the politicians who are so VERY eager to get into a fight, but can't clearly state a national interest...and are not willing to hit hard enough to finish the job.

Blogger Krul March 15, 2016 5:17 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger Conan the Cimmerian March 15, 2016 5:18 PM  

I think google just ate my comment for reporting to authorities due to key words.

My screen went white with the word google accounts at the top when I hit publish.

The comment again:

@51 I think there is an oven that can heat up to 6 million degrees F that is being warmed up for such.

Blogger Conan the Cimmerian March 15, 2016 5:19 PM  

Or I hit sign out on accident. Hmm.

Anonymous BGKB March 15, 2016 5:19 PM  

Using the term "Chicken-Hawk" is an ad hominem attempt to disqualify the argument based on the person making the argument

All this time and no one said the term is anti Semitic. http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/11/10/outcast-3 "Instead, it devises its own punishments for offenders: sometimes they are compelled to apologize, pay restitution, or move to Israel."

Blogger Student in Blue March 15, 2016 5:23 PM  

@Napoleon 12pdr
What bothers me more are the politicians who are so VERY eager to get into a fight, but can't clearly state a national interest...and are not willing to hit hard enough to finish the job.

Sounds to me like the chickenhawk is doing it subconsciously for their own social status. They just want to fight and win a fight to 'prove' that they're still tough, and not for any other reason.

Anonymous #5454 March 15, 2016 5:43 PM  

From http://www.sexualassault.army.mil/ProgMgr_Tng.cfm regarding documentation for SHARP:

"SHARP Knowledge Center (KC)

This site is for specific audience only and AKO login required. Please remember what you are downloading is FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY. What you are downloading is NOT FOR THE GENERAL PUBLIC TO VIEW AND DOWNLOAD. "

Makes you wonder what they don't want perspective recruits to read.


Cold Fusion?!?!?!

Only the military is still using ancient application dev platforms such as this.

Blogger Noah B March 15, 2016 5:43 PM  

They seldom teach logical argumentation anymore since they prefer their serfs to be easily susceptible to propaganda.

Blogger Nate March 15, 2016 5:44 PM  

Ah... good times... good times... but I have ask about this bit...

" If a CNBC analyst urges viewers to buy a stock he is secretly shorting, he will rightly be dismissed as a hypocrite unworthy of further regard"

What's a CNBC?


Blogger Noah B March 15, 2016 5:56 PM  

Yeah I noticed that CNBC bit too. I guess not every prediction can be prescient, can it?

Blogger Young Heaving Shipping Containers of Liberty March 15, 2016 6:02 PM  

Scott6584 wrote:The "chicken hawk" is inherently stupid. I served in the Army, and my son is a Lieutenant in the Army right now, so don't go off on me for being unwilling to serve.

Using the term "Chicken-Hawk" is an ad hominem attempt to disqualify the argument based on the person making the argument. That is a logical fallacy.


Found the solipsist.

Blogger Young Heaving Shipping Containers of Liberty March 15, 2016 6:05 PM  

Scott4869 wrote:How dare you all impugn my intelligence! I built a 2 story house in Dallas, I'll have you know!!!

DEFLECT! DEFLECT! DEFLECT!

Blogger Nate March 15, 2016 6:11 PM  

"DEFLECT! DEFLECT! DEFLECT!"

i do believe the preferred nomenclature is "fighting retreat".

Blogger David Adams March 15, 2016 6:15 PM  

Christopher Hitchens was another chicken hawk member of the tribe. They are a blood thirsty lot.



"The war in Iraq was conceived by 25 neoconservative intellectuals, most of them Jewish, who are pushing President Bush to change the course of history" Israeli journalist Ari Shavit, haaretz, 3rd April 2003.


We should drop all of these jewish warmongers along with the shabbat goy that support them in some of these shit holes where they are advocating our men and women go and fight, no return for these scumbags, let them stay there.

Blogger Anchorman March 15, 2016 6:24 PM  

So, BS' vision of bravery is sticking up for a white chick who has bad feelz, but not fighting in a war.

Brave, brave Sir Robin.

Anonymous Rabbi B March 15, 2016 6:30 PM  

@67 Nate

"DEFLECT! DEFLECT! DEFLECT!"

i do believe the preferred nomenclature is "fighting retreat".

Making passive-aggressiveness great again.

Anonymous MendoScot March 15, 2016 6:32 PM  

OT: An Argentine Coast Guard vessel just sank the Chinese fishing boat Lu Yan Yuan Yu 010, after catching it fishing inside our exclusion zone. The crew was rescued.

Anonymous Quartermaster March 15, 2016 6:34 PM  

@34
Thou dost protest too much, and for nothing. The term “Chickenhawk” was not coined as ad hominem, but as a description for a person who is ready to go to war, but is too cowardly to go himself. The sobriquet fit Shapiro and Goldberg to a “T.”

I served in the Cold War (early 70s, right at the end of Vietnam) and in the 80s. My only Son was activated twice from the Army Reserve for the GWOT, and served in Iraq. He got out because of a congenital spinal defect that was discovered after he had 12 years in. No Chickenhawks here either.

I was against going into Iraq because of the problems I saw in Iraq. Going in I would have simply hunted Saddam and handed the keys to the next strong man, after doing away with the WMD and nuke program. A warning along the lines of “don't make me come back” would have been in order and, I think, well received.

Instead, Bush and his idiots went in, dismissed the only glue holding the country together, and raised up the very people making a mess of things in Iran next door, thus handing the country to Iran. Nation building when there are no makings of a nation, is also the height of stupidity. In the end, there were no gains. I don't doubt there were some good people (an acquaintance was over there training helo pilots for a revived Iraqi Air Force and described some of those good people), there were just too few that were touched by us to make a difference.

Bluntly, we would have been better off dividing the country along the lines of the Ottoman provinces, than trying to leave a unitary state behind.

On #4, I agree on shooting Lawyers and Journalists. However, I would add politicians as well. Lawyers and Journalists would fall under the head of “half measures.”

@35
Given the loony left, no one would survive a week.

@39
Actually, he didn't.

@45
OTS? You must have been Air Farce. That's just a bunch of corporatists that wear uniforms and pretend to be military (My father was USAF. I otter know).

Blogger James Dixon March 15, 2016 6:44 PM  

> How dare you all impugn my intelligence! I built a 2 story house in Dallas, I'll have you know!!!

By George, I believe Scott may have gotten the idea. :)

Blogger James Dixon March 15, 2016 6:49 PM  

> You can go back a lot further than that, depending on your premises.

I can't argue that point. It's just that WWII is as far back as I can go with even indirect knowledge that I trust.

Blogger Verne March 15, 2016 6:50 PM  

War, I was convince it was my duty to fight for my country. I signed up before I turned 18. My service would not start until after high school, when I was 18. It was more my promised than a enlistment. It was the Marine platoon leader class program. I would go to the local city college, train during the summer and enter the Marines as an officer. I was so proud to serve. My family has always sent men to fight for our nation. It was part of my upbringing. My older friends went to war in Vietnam, I would follow them. But before I left high school, the war was ending and not all my frinds came back. Wasted lives, we never fought to win, we never cared about my frinds. And thank God they did not need so many new officers to throw into the meat grinder as the war ended. They did not want me as an offer and I had finally figured out what it was they wanted me for. Meat

My son came of age during the Iraq war. I set him down and explained war to him and what it did to my friends. I told him the fact that our nation will turn its back on you. Patriotism is a big scam. He did not sign up. My family no longer has a tradition of going to war.

Ben Shapiro simply believes the bull shit, the same way I did. Just not enough to do the fighting himself. He is smarter than I was and maybe a wee bit less sincere

Blogger Hunsdon March 15, 2016 6:56 PM  

@34

And if Obama had not pulled out, it could have become like South Korea, a foothold in the region which provides a base of operations to oppose Jihadism in their region instead of our own.

Scott: That's about as dumb as a bag of hammers. The Status of Forces Agreement expired on 31 Dec 2011. (That was the one W signed.) I guess we should have just invaded all over again, eh? Or we could have stayed so that our forces would have been subject to Iraqi law enforcement and judicial care?

Go peddle it somewhere else, short bus.

Blogger bob k. mando March 15, 2016 6:58 PM  

73. James Dixon March 15, 2016 6:44 PM
By George, I believe Scott may have gotten the idea. :)



so VERY close. try this:
by George, i see Scott may have gotten the idea.

Blogger Ron March 15, 2016 6:58 PM  

@kfg

thanks for explaining it.

Blogger Michael Maier March 15, 2016 7:01 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger Michael Maier March 15, 2016 7:02 PM  

Folks, keep your different "Scott"s straight.

I think doing what the second, sockpuppet "Scott" did should be a banning offense... but it ain't my blog.

Blogger Michael Maier March 15, 2016 7:02 PM  

. #5454 March 15, 2016 5:43 PM
From http://www.sexualassault.army.mil/ProgMgr_Tng.cfm regarding documentation for SHARP:

"SHARP Knowledge Center (KC)

This site is for specific audience only and AKO login required. Please remember what you are downloading is FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY. What you are downloading is NOT FOR THE GENERAL PUBLIC TO VIEW AND DOWNLOAD. "

Makes you wonder what they don't want perspective recruits to read.


Cold Fusion?!?!?!

Only the military is still using ancient application dev platforms such as this.


I'm in accounting for the DOD and they forced me to sign up for AKO to have access to the Army pay system. To call it a horrific nightmare is a vast understatement.

To witness its implementation has made me question my own sanity.

Blogger Chris Mallory March 15, 2016 7:38 PM  

@8 Don't forget Max Boot who said the only thing wrong with the war in Afghanistan was that there had not been enough American blood wasted.

@21 Clinton finished Somalia, but it was started by Bush the First.

Blogger Chris Mallory March 15, 2016 7:43 PM  

@23 Clinton left the troops in Somalia hanging and caused some of the deaths. The ground commanders had requested heavy armor, but Clinton's SecDef rejected the request as sending the wrong signals.

Blogger Scott6584 March 15, 2016 8:14 PM  



Thou dost protest too much, and for nothing. The term “Chickenhawk” was not coined as ad hominem, but as a description for a person who is ready to go to war, but is too cowardly to go himself. The sobriquet fit Shapiro and Goldberg to a “T.”



I didn't mean to imply that "Chickenhawk" was created as an ad hominem term. But it is mostly used that way now. I don't really have an issue with real "Hawks" using the term. My issue is with "Chickens" who use the term to justify their cowardice, and try and make themselves virtuous.

Blogger Scott6584 March 15, 2016 8:20 PM  

Just to put a point on it, saying that those who've never been in the armed forces have no voice on if we should go to war is just as ridiculous as saying men should have no voice in women terminating a pregnancy.

That's why I don't like the term Chickenhawk. It may have been coined as a term to describe warmongers who are unwilling to make the sacrifice themselves. But in practice, it is used as a tool to disqualify an argument based on the person arguing, not the validity of the argument itself.

It is the same logic used by Black people to say that white people have no say in race relations.

It is the same logic used by women to say men have no voice in reproduction issues.

It is the same logic used by every discrete victim group to disqualify the valid opinions of those who disagree with them.

The use of "Chickenhawk" in an argument is just identity politics - something I loathe with every fiber of my being.

Blogger Young Heaving Shipping Containers of Liberty March 15, 2016 8:27 PM  

Michael Maier wrote:I think doing what the second, sockpuppet "Scott" did should be a banning offense... but it ain't my blog

I agree completely.

Blogger Chris Mallory March 15, 2016 8:32 PM  

@85
Personally, I loathe hypocrites with every fiber in my being. A person who cheerleads for war but doesn't have the guts to sign their name on enlistment papers is both a coward and a hypocrite.

It was perfectly legitimate to call Bush the Lesser out for sending other people's kids to war while his daughters were safe and sound. Now they should not have been in combat, but both of them should have been drafted and put to work as orderlies in a VA burn unit. George P. Bush should have been drafted into the infantry.

Identity is life.

Blogger Scott6584 March 15, 2016 9:00 PM  

Chris Mallory wrote:@85

Personally, I loathe hypocrites with every fiber in my being. A person who cheerleads for war but doesn't have the guts to sign their name on enlistment papers is both a coward and a hypocrite.

It was perfectly legitimate to call Bush the Lesser out for sending other people's kids to war while his daughters were safe and sound. Now they should not have been in combat, but both of them should have been drafted and put to work as orderlies in a VA burn unit. George P. Bush should have been drafted into the infantry.

Identity is life.


So, since I am an Engineer in Construction, ONLY I should be able to opine on what building ought to be built. If your not in Construction, you have no say.

And I have a brother-in-law who is a doctor. I suppose ONLY he and his fellow doctors get to have a voice in how to set up a health care system.

And I have a brother who is in IT. I suppose the rest of us should just "shut up" about IT encryption, since we don't work in that field.

The Military don't get a special exemption. What they do affects all of us, and all of us have a right to have a voice. Not only that, military troops VOLUNTEER for service, knowing full well the sacrifice that may be required. I know I did, and I know my son does. To make the military into just one more "victim" class is an insult.

Blogger JaimeInTexas March 15, 2016 9:07 PM  

Have you not heard that it was renamed Onward Judeo-Christian soldier?

Blogger JaimeInTexas March 15, 2016 9:16 PM  

Oh man. This WND exchange brings back memories of a road taken. It was Vox Day that kept me going back to WND until Vox was no more at WND. I liked Ilana Mercer too but she was not the draw.
The path has been sweet and sour. Having eyes opened carries its burdens.

Blogger JaimeInTexas March 15, 2016 9:51 PM  

You do not know the difference in required training between an enginee and an army grunt?
To call for never ending foreign interventions, claiming it is a must, and not following through with joining in the task being demanded is hypocrisy. Nay, cowardice.

Blogger LP9 Rin Integra S.I.G. March 15, 2016 10:17 PM  

I recall this op-ed and noted that the military isn't interested in neocon policies for many reasons that I'm too ____ to list.

I wrote off BShap around 2003 and by 2005 his stances were predictable as Rush L on a Monday. The larger issue is that Ben cannot match Vox in intel or military history or war gaming strategy.

Blogger LP9 Rin Integra S.I.G. March 15, 2016 10:27 PM  

Perhaps I wrote off or doubted Ben's punditry and other op-ed writers due to their youth and expected lack of logical follow through.

Blogger JimR March 16, 2016 12:50 AM  

@88. Scott6584

"So, since I am an Engineer in Construction, ONLY I should be able to opine on what building ought to be built. If your not in Construction, you have no say."


Your analogy is broken, but I can fix it.

"so, since I want you to build a building, in a certain place, and a certain way, but I don't want to pay the cost for the building, I shouldn't be able to order you to build it?"

why yes Scott, if you aren't willing to put skin in the game, you shouldn't get to decide how it's played.

Blogger The Overgrown Hobbit March 16, 2016 2:45 AM  

The error is in the ad hominem. Mr. Shapiro Jr.'s lack of class (currently) and courage (then) are irrelevant to the merits of the Iraq invasion (good), Reconstruction (a debacle), or a Trump presidency (jury's out).

If I offered you an article from a Harvard law school grad who opted into boot camp would that magically dissolve the Shapiro stink and make the Iraqi occupation a good idea?

You're heretic-hunting. It's the SJW game. So-and-so has badhink, he's One Of Those People. So everything he says must be disqualified.

EVERYTHING.

Bugger that for a game of soldiers.

You've been offering a master class in rhetoric here. Why do you suppose no-one has paid attention?

Anonymous kfg March 16, 2016 3:33 AM  

"And I have a brother-in-law who is a doctor. I suppose ONLY he and his fellow doctors get to have a voice in how to set up a health care system."

I don't know your brother-in-law, but I have yet to meet a doctor who, in private, doesn't despise the concept of a "health care system."

It's one of the few things that doctors get right. I suppose that too will die as the younger generation of doctors come online who have grown up and been trained never knowing anything but a "health care system."

Blogger Ron March 16, 2016 3:49 AM  

@Scott6584

That's why I don't like the term Chickenhawk. It may have been coined as a term to describe warmongers who are unwilling to make the sacrifice themselves. But in practice, it is used as a tool to disqualify an argument based on the person arguing, not the validity of the argument itself.

Thats just it. If Mr Shapiro was relying on a cold objective analysis concluding that war was a good idea, Id say you were right. But he was using very heated rhetoric to push the buttons of well meaning men. It is that emotional manipulation that opens him to the charged of hypocrisy.

Its one thing if he got up and said "well boys I personally would never go to war unless you put a gun to my head because frankly I dont feel like giving up my freedom and risking my life for anyone, but honor demands that you go to war!" That would be honest, and while people would likely laugh at him for advancing such an argument, no one would be manipulated.

But he was using arguments that struck to the honorable impulses of some of the best people. If aomeone wants to make that kind of argument, they have two choices. Either honestly acceot the chickenhawk label, or sign up and go as well.


What he did is very much like those social conservatives who insist that honest men should "man up" and subject themselves to the insane marriage situation, ie, slutty "born again virgins", divorce rape, endless alimony, etc. while that same social conservative is regularly snorting coke off an 18 yo hookers ass.

Blogger Jamie-R March 16, 2016 6:57 AM  

Jewish guy wants war from gentiles to serve Jewish interests but not nationalism which does not. Pretty easy checklist.

Anonymous Quartermaster March 16, 2016 8:02 AM  

@88
You're just grasping at straws. Your analogies are so lame they don't warrant refutation.

By the by, I am an Engineer and the Engineer analogy is utterly pathetic.

Blogger Mike Wallens March 16, 2016 9:18 AM  

Judging by responses here, the chickenhawk insult must have hit close to home for some.

The description is completely appropriate for people like Shapiro. A hard core advocate for the Iraq debacle, of military age, in good health, he was a perfect candidate to put his money where his mouth was.

The same applied to Dick Cheney. 5 draft deferments during Vietnam. He said he had other priorities during that war. George W. Bush - ran to the reserves so perhaps a little better but still a coward. Feith, Wolfowitz, Richard Pearl, Horowitz, Bill Bennet - all these men were of military age during Vietnam, yet they chose to avoid it when it mattered. After 9/11 however, they were vicious keyboard warriors.

Chickenhawk is very fitting for these cowards.

Semper Fi to all jarheads. USMC MOS 0341

Anonymous Hoyos March 16, 2016 11:14 AM  

One minor niggle @100. There are no cowardly fighter pilots, peacetime or wartime. Those guys die in training all the time, and frequently enough during exercises, etc. Fighter planes are engineered and flown for combat performance at the expense of safety. A true coward would never set foot in such a place.

I have my own grave, grave problems with Bush's policies, but it should be mentioned that physical bravery is no substitute for wisdom. Plenty of tribes have been incredibly brave but lost out to those no less brave but with superior strategy, tactics, and technology. Nor is it an inoculation against evil.Stalin was a combat soldier, so was Mao, and Hitler won the Iron Cross.

Blogger James March 16, 2016 12:13 PM  

There are no fighter pilots down in hell,
There are no fighter pilots down in hell,
The place is full of queers, navigators, bombardiers,
There are no fighter pilots down in hell

There are no fighter pilots down in hell,
There are no fighter pilots down in hell,
The place is full of brass sitting 'round on their fat ass,
There are no fighter pilots down in hell,

There are no bomber pilots in the fray,
There are no bomber pilots in the fray,
The autopilot's on they're reading novels in the john,
There are no bomber pilots in the fray.

Blogger Bibliotheca Servare March 17, 2016 12:29 AM  

Close but no cigar. Swap "order you to build it" for "try and convince others to have you build it" and the analogy is still pretty terrible, but at least it gets a bit closer to the mark ;-)

Blogger Scott6584 March 17, 2016 3:07 AM  

You guys are completely misreading me. I don't know this Shapiro guy, and if I've ever even read anything he has written, I wouldn't know it. I won't condemn or support Shapiro because I simply don't know who he is or what he stand's for.

But as a guy who went to West Point for college, and who has a son who is now a lieutenant in the Army, I simply don't like the Chicken hawk terminology. I am big on the military being subject to the civilian leaders. And the whole idea of the Chicken hawk term is an attempt to delegitimize civilian oversight of the military, in my opinion. I just don't like where that argument logically ends.

It has nothing to do with Shapiro. It has to do with how much I genuinely hate that term, and everything it implies.

Blogger JohnG March 17, 2016 4:13 AM  

@7 at this point the only worthwhile service is the USMC, it's the only service whose leadership has any integrity left. The Navy and Air Farce are in a race to see can be more gay/pagan friendly and the Army can't get penis envy on either of those two services so still looks to the Marines to some extent. Army officers just cheated two women through the Ranger course, so there's no integrity left in Army conventional combat arms. Ultimately, guys like Mattis are leaving/retired and eventually there's going to be advocates in the senior USMC officer corps for all of the pop culture nonsense. What most people don't realize is that once stupidity/SJW/Pop-culture non-sense gets solidified into written doctrine, it's very hard to remove.

Blogger JohnG March 17, 2016 4:16 AM  

oh, lol. SHARP - sexual harassment and rape prevention - a program in the Army which is vastly more important than winning wars or killing the enemy. Ask any sergeant major trolling around your Battalion area or Forward Operating Base. As I understand it, you still can't rape a female by looking at her yet.

Blogger Bibliotheca Servare March 18, 2016 1:25 AM  

Unless she's in a Submarine, at least...oh, wait, that's Navy.

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts