Flame — HabitableZone

Flame » in reply to 'It's what we like to call in the war business "fire."'

Response
Tom Brosz — (archived)

We'll leave aside the idea that I have to defend a statement made in response to a delusional lie. What next? Do I have to point out that deaths in war involve wounds, when Lindy points to blood on bodies as proof that they were attacked by Israeli vampires?

I had a high draft number, but would have enlisted in the Air Force if the number had been low. I like to have some choices, and I have never supported conscription for any wars, legitimate or otherwise. I was in ROTC for a while.

My brother was career Air Force, an Academy graduate, and flew C-5s into the Middle East during the first Gulf War. He's retired now.

My dad was in the Army during Korea, but was assigned to do science and lab work in the U.S. instead of overseas combat. Did his tour and then left to raise his family.

The "chickenhawk" concept--which, oddly, was thoroughly buried with a stake through its heart by the Left during eight years of Clinton--appeals to mentalities that can't handle abstraction very well. Proof of this is when I respond with "only people who pay taxes should be allowed to comment on tax and spending issues," a lot of people seem to have no idea what I mean.

I'm not fighting the Jihadist threat personally, but I'm damn sure I don't want to see people in power whose first response to a threat is capitulation. And capitulation to an enemy with values and policies that one would think would send any real progressive screaming into the night.

More on "chickenhawk" here.

Log in or register to post.

The whole thread (55 posts)