In the 1960s foreign policy idealogues pushed the idea of unprovoked intervention in a foreign country in order to - via proxy - fight another ideology they considered evil. They didn’t fight themselves, of course, but sent an entire generation to die in their stead, refusing to ackowledge reality until the nation said “no more”.
You think people would learn from their mistakes, but it happened again. Again America has been engaged in a war of choice that not only has led to misery and destabalization, but has also allowed our true enemies to operate globally with a free hand. Never again. Don’t be conned by the Cons.
Wait a minute. I thought National Review says we’re winning!
Want to rethink this.
“another ideology they considered evil. ”
They???
Do you not consider communism evil? Many more murders have been committed in its name than the other big evil, the one we all consider an evil: Nazism.
Nazism is dead. There are still Communist countries.
Plus Vietnam was a fight against a communist, nationalist trying to overthrow a noncommunist country. Please remember that context.
Dugger
You didn’t read the Frum article, did you Oliver?
Oh no! Panic called me a terrorist sympathizer! Now I have to drive to my therapist in my Volvo while drinking a decaf-latte and eating sushi!
Ha Ha! Go write in your diary that I refused to answer your loaded, idiotic question “Yes, my foreign policy would be to surrender to al Qaeda.” What a sad day for the honorable and elevated discourse you tried so hard to conduct, Panic! Truly, it is tragic.
Ollie-
Once again I ask, how would you fight the war on terror?
What the hell does “I’m panicky” mean? You’re a fucking idiot.
Hey Panic,
And from their point of view, Judeo-Christian society has been attacking them since the crusades. So who’s right?
They sure are there now, aren’t they Panic? Well, my advice would be: don’t go into countries and turn them into unstable terrorist-producers, the way Bush has. Iraq has been nothing but a strategic error of the highest order. Our Iraq failure has utterly undermined our ability to fight terrorism. Naturally, you can’t see that, since it would interfere with your real priority, which is Bush worship, not fighting terrorists.
Also, Panic, thanks for capitalizing “Dipshit.” Otherwise I might have been confused with a garden-variety dipshit, instead of my proud family surname (it’s a Belgian name). It’s nice that you pay attention to the little things, as well as the big picture (which is that liberals are evil and only GWB can stop the sky from falling!)
“Again America has been engaged in a war of choice”
We did not choose this, these people have been declaring war on us for years.
November 1979: Muslim extremists (Iranian variety) seized the U.S. embassy in Iran and held 52 American hostages for 444 days, following Democrat Jimmy Carter’s masterful foreign policy granting Islamic fanaticism its first real foothold in the Middle East.
1982: Muslim extremists (mostly Hezbollah) began a nearly decade-long habit of taking Americans and Europeans hostage in Lebanon, killing William Buckley and holding Terry Anderson for 6 1/2 years.
April 1983: Muslim extremists (Islamic Jihad or possibly Hezbollah) bombed the U.S. Embassy in Beirut, killing 16 Americans.
October 1983: Muslim extremists (Hezbollah) blew up the U.S. Marine barracks at the Beirut airport, killing 241 Marines.
December 1983: Muslim extremists (al-Dawa) blew up the U.S. Embassy in Kuwait, killing five and injuring 80.
September 1984: Muslim extremists (Hezbollah) exploded a truck bomb at the U.S. Embassy annex in Beirut, killing 24 people, including two U.S. servicemen.
December 1984: Muslim extremists (probably Hezbollah) hijacked a Kuwait Airways airplane, landed in Iran and demanded the release of the 17 members of al-Dawa who had been arrested for the bombing of the U.S. Embassy in Kuwait, killing two Americans before the siege was over.
June 14, 1985: Muslim extremists (Hezbollah) hijacked TWA Flight 847 out of Athens, diverting it to Beirut, taking the passengers hostage in return for the release of the Kuwait 17 as well as another 700 prisoners held by Israel. When their demands were not met, the Muslims shot U.S. Navy diver Robert Dean Stethem and dumped his body on the tarmac.
October 1985: Muslim extremists (Palestine Liberation Front backed by Libya) seized an Italian cruise ship, the Achille Lauro, killing 69-year-old American Leon Klinghoffer by shooting him and then tossing his body overboard.
December 1985: Muslim extremists (backed by Libya) bombed airports in Rome and Vienna, killing 20 people, including five Americans.
April 1986: Muslim extremists (backed by Libya) bombed a discotheque frequented by U.S. servicemen in West Berlin, injuring hundreds and killing two, including a U.S. soldier.
December 1988: Muslim extremists (backed by Libya) bombed Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, killing all 259 on board and 11 on the ground.
February 1993: Muslim extremists (al-Gama’a al-Islamiyya, possibly with involvement of friendly rival al-Qaida) set off a bomb in the basement of the World Trade Center, killing six and wounding more than 1,000.
Spring 1993: Muslim extremists (al-Gama’a al-Islamiyya, the Sudanese Islamic Front and at least one member of Hamas) plot to blow up the Lincoln and Holland tunnels, the U.N. complex, and the FBI’s lower Manhattan headquarters.
November 1995: Muslim extremists (possibly Iranian “Party of God”) explode a car bomb at U.S. military headquarters in Saudi Arabia, killing five U.S. military servicemen.
June 1996: Muslim extremists (13 Saudis and a Lebanese member of Hezbollah, probably with involvement of al-Qaida) explode a truck bomb outside the Khobar Towers military complex, killing 19 American servicemen and injuring hundreds.
August 1998: Muslim extremists (al-Qaida) explode truck bombs at U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, killing 224 and injuring thousands.
October 2000: Muslim extremists (al-Qaida) blow up the U.S. Navy destroyer USS Cole, killing 17 U.S. sailors.
Sept. 11, 2001: Muslim extremists (al-Qaida) hijack commercial aircraft and fly planes into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and a field in Pennsylvania, killing nearly 3,000 Americans.
It’s nice to see you side with the likes of Hezzbolah, Hamas, and al Queda. At least we know where you stand.
You can’t know if a communist is actually evil unless you can read his mind, right Dugger?
Not one documented evil Communist. Not one.
DC’s got his head so far up the GOP talking points, he literally cannot understand how little the War in Iraq has to do with terrorism. Sad, really, to have citizens who so willfully place their heads behind veils of ignorance.
“these people”
You’re panicky, I’ll give you that. But mainly, you’re an idiot.
Yep, no terrorists in Iraq, no al Queda there.
Tom, I am truly amazed at your ability to not answer a simple question. Have a nice weekend, Dipshit.
Oh, thanks Tom.
So, you’re foreign policy would be to allow radical islam to continue their current reign of terror?
Blah blah blah. Being that you’re a conservative, naturally all you know about liberal foreign policy are the stereotypes fed to you from Malkin’s spoon. Go squawk with her if that’s all you’ve got, Panic. Or perhaps you can write a tearful diary entry about how liberals didn’t respond as successfully to your slurs of “appeaser” and “traitor” as you would have hoped.
“What the hell does I m panicky mean?”
It means you have a chicken little foreign policy. You support idiotic blundering because it makes you feel better, regardless of its actual effect on our security. It means you are a fool who bends over for any tough talker with a flag in his hand, provided you’re scared enough. And boy, you sure are scared, aren’t you, DCPanic? Scared enough to support the biggest foreign policy failure since Vietnam, it looks like. You’re going to have to do some serious revisionist history (read, blame the liberals) to explain yourself to your grandkids, buddy. You better get started!
DCPanic says that the War in Iraq was not a war of choice, and then proceeds to support his point by listing attacks by Muslim extremists against Americans prior to the war in Iraq.
Does anybody else notice the lack of Iraqis in said list?
There was no infrastructure of Muslim extremists in Iraq before we destabilized the place. They would have represented a threat to Saddam’s iron fist.
And do you have an answer, DCPanic, for our chummy relationship with Saudi Arabia, which is not only home to the extremist Wahhabist Muslims but in fact institutionalized that strain of Islam into the political and social structure?
Leroy says…
“And from their point of view, Judeo-Christian society has been attacking them since the crusades.”
Try a little science experiment Leroy.
Take a Koran, and begin proselytizing on a street corner, any street corner in America or Europe.
Take a bible and do the same on any street corner in Iran.
Do the american one first, cause if you do it the other way around, you won’t live to perform the second experiment.
It is only leftist chuckleheads who sit back an look at the “point of view” of a mass murderer. There is, in fact, right and wrong.
I agree.
Right: invading Afghanistan.
Wrong: invading Iraq.
How would I fight it? I’d kill Al Qaeda - wherever they are. Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan. What I wouldn’t do is invade and occupy countries where AQ has not been.
That word does not mean what you think it means, jwg. A chickenhawk isnt just someone who supports military action but has never served. Its someone who supports it, and is of appropriate age and condition that he can serve in the military, but doesnt, and who equates his support of the war to the actions of the men on the ground, who sees his efforts repeating, for instance, falsehoods about WMD and ties to al qaeda as equal to killing and dying in the name of those lies. It is, for example, a college republican who supports the war, who wont sign up for service, but will participate in a Howard Dean Scream-off, and see those two as being equal. It is a journalist who believes that repeating what the administration wants the people to hear is worthy of the silver star, and that being called for being a hack, a purple heart. It is a blogger/troll/some-guy-with-a-website who truly truly believes that posting constantly about how the fact that Fahrenheit 9/11 is now available for $8 at certain retailers shows that the entirety of liberalism r teh 5uck, and truly believes that in so doing, he is helping our servicemen and women win their fight. They died to that we may gloat. Thats what the term means.
Just so you know.
You chickenhawk.
You’d live longer if you tried the first scenario, but it’s not all that much more safe.
a) “chucklehead” is the most meaningless word used as an insult since “do-gooder”, and even that one meant something divorced from context.
b) Damn right it is, and that’s a GOOD thing. Only some of our enemies are psychotic, the rest are doing what they’re doing for a reason. You don’t think it would be easier and save a lot of lives if we actually considered that reason and its implications?
For future reference, please note that I did in no way a) profess my support for the Jihad against the Crusaders, b) advocate surrendering to al-Qaeda, or c) spit on the graves of the man who gave their lives to defend my freedom to say such obviously treasonous things on a blog on the Internet; and neither do I have any intention of doing so.
I doubt that disclaimer will prevent people from claiming otherwise, but there you go.
Or a Yankee fan.
“Plus Vietnam was a fight against a communist, nationalist trying to overthrow a noncommunist country. Please remember that context.”
McNamara:
“There aren’t many examples in which you bring two former enemies together, at the highest levels, and discuss what might have been. I formed the hypothesis that each of us could have achieved our objectives without the terrible loss of life. And I wanted to test that by going to Vietnam.
The former Foreign Minister of Vietnam, a wonderful man named Thach said, “You’re totally wrong. We were fighting for our independence. You were fighting to enslave us.”
We almost came to blows. That was noon on the first day.
“Do you mean to say it was not a tragedy for you, when you lost 3 million 4 hundred thousand Vietnamese killed, which on our population base is the equivalent of 27 million Americans? What did you accomplish? You didn’t get any more than we were willing to give you at the beginning of the war. You could have had the whole damn thing: independence, unification.”
“Mr. McNamara, You must never have read a history book. If you’d had, you’d know we weren’t pawns of the Chinese or the Russians. McNamara, didn’t you know that? Don’t you understand that we have been fighting the Chinese for 1000 years? We were fighting for our independence.”
So , once and for all Dugger, shut your cheesesteak-hole.
Wanna bet… god what are you twelve? Sure, I triple dog dare you, but lets be clear on the terms. Youre going to find what exactly? Liberals calling Righties chickenhawk when the Rightie in question, while advocating the war, makes any indication that he does not in fact glorify on a level equal to our brave men and women? Is it even possible to prove that? I mean you’d actually have find someone who was called a chicken hawk saying more or less explicitly “While I endorse the war, and concede that I am not now in service, though I am in more or less prime condition for it at this time when they are having trouble meeting recruitment numbers, I insist that I do not at all equate my expression of my opinion with our nations brave warriors and glorious war dead”? I mean if this is the bet you want ti incite me into making isnt that what you’d have to do? And you’re going to find a “whole bunch” of these examples?
Or wait, do you just mean you’ll find people called chickenhawk who you dont think fit the qualification? Cause if you do that’d just be really childi-… oh, right, nevermind.
Wanna bet I can find a whole bunch of examples right here on Oliver’s site that don’t fit your example?
Well, that’s one way of looking at it. Another way is as described by PD100 there, and then a still third way, and one that I tend to favour, is none of your goddamned business in the first place.
Unless they’re in Iraq. Then, we should let them have free reign.
Rex, nice try trying to add stipulations to chickenhawkedness, but Jeff Jacoby put that meme out to pasture.
Well, ya see, captain clever, its actually that very Jeff Jacoby article that Glen Greenwald rebuffs in This article that I linked to, which means that Jacoby hardly put the issue to bed by defining the term in a way that he could easily demean for his own reasons to try and end the argument entirely, much the same way some conservatives define liberals as objectively pro terrorist to put them in a better position to attack them (though nobody here would stoop to such stupidity, I’m sure) so to say that someone who qualifies (as I see it) as a chickenhawk defines it as something else entirely to better demean the term itself without addressing the issues is in any putting the issue to rest is, frankly, asanine.
Jesus Herman Christ…From the Greenwald Article:
So A-Of course theres no webster’s definition for this application of the term since its such a new phenomenon, B-Greenwald dissects Jacoby’s incorrect interpretation of the term, and C-He also shows how supporters of the war in Afghanistan are not inherently chickenhawks, and goes on even further to extrapolate on that point.
So basically, in that one paragraph right after he quotes Jacoby, from where you got your little Webster’s snark, taking it out of context in order to misrepresent it, he actually addresses your points, and rebuffs your subsequent attack.
Dear god in heaven, what is it like to be so wrong?
Sorry, I thought that rebuttal was penned by Thomas Ellers. You can see how I’d make that mistake.
Although it was nice of Greenwald/Ellers/Ryan/Wilson to slam Jacoby for mis-defining the term “chicken-hawk” and then admit, in the very next sentence mind you, that there is no one Webster’s approved definition.
PS. The way Glenn defines it, Oliver, you, frame, and Quaker would all be chicken-hawks thanks to your stance on Afghanistan (supporting it without serving while lambasting those who disagree)
“How would I fight it? I d kill Al Qaeda - wherever they are. Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan. What I wouldn t do is invade and occupy countries where AQ has not been.”
Uhh, this is lunancy. Al Qaeda has been in Iraq. But we now assume you are going to invade every country where there is an Al Qaeda person (unbless you have a mgic way of killing without violating sovreignty) . At times, that would include Germany, Turkey, Iran, the US and of course you would invade Saudi Arabia AND Pakistan.
An abosultely brillaint foreign policy. In addiotn to Iraq, since AQ is there and has been there, you would invade a bunch of otehr countries. Who’s gonna be in your army? TomY and PD100?
Dugger
Um DC, you posted a long list of incidents but left out all the ones involving Iraq, a country we invaded and continue to occupy.
And Farris, note: we invaded and occupy Iraq. Al Qaeda did not have free rein there before, they do now. Could there be a link?
Pedro,
As for your challenge- depends on where you go really. If I read from the Koran here in NC, I’d be strung up by my insides.
But that’s not really my point. My point was, just because you “believe” something doesn’t make it true. You all believe that Muslims are out to take over the world because they hate freedom. They think that we’re out to squash them because we hate their God. My guess is that the truth, as in most things, lies somewhere in the middle. Just because you say things loud and often, doesn’t make them true.
Oh, wait, I forgot. Trying to actually use logic in these situations and trying to prevent future episodes is called sympathizing with terrorists.
Dugger says
“Who s gonna be in your army? TomY and PD100?”
Oh.My.God.
Funniest visual in a while. I doubt any of them could pass a military physical or PT test, but the thought of all them lined up at “attention” is hilarious….
Dugger twists himself into a knot arguing against a disastrous, pointless, irrelevant, incompetent invasion of Germany. Great job, Dugger! That would indeed be a bad idea. Now, where the fuck were you in 2003 when your party frightened you into backing a pointless, irrelevant, disastrously incompetent invasion of Iraq? Oh that’s right, you were in a WMD tizzy, masturbating about what a Manful Defender of Western Civilization you were for your tour of duty in the warblogosphere. Not to mention calling liberals cowards and traitors — you get a couple stripes for that? Since you and your war party buddies have consistenly been so fantastically wrong about every security issue in the past 5 years, your credibility on these matters is worth about as much value as your warblogger pension. I suggest you cash it in somewhere where it has value. Maybe Freerepublic.com?
Terrorism, it’s all Carter’s fault…or not.
Dana, you don’t have the resolve to do what it takes to get Osama. Not much else anyone else needs to know about you, is there?
Our esteemed host wrote:
Well, Mr Willis, I’d point out that the biggest concentration of al Qaeda we can pinpoint, with certain accuracy, are the prisoners at Guantanamo. From what you wrote, I assume that you mean we ought to simply line them all up against the wall and shoot them.
That must be true — or your statement wasn’t true.
Uhh, this is lunancy. Al Qaeda has been in Iraq.
Sure, Saddam would have glady harbored Al Qaeda, even though the radical Muslims hated Saddam due to him being secular. Whateeeeeeeeeever you say…
But we now assume you are going to invade every country where there is an Al Qaeda person (unbless you have a mgic way of killing without violating sovreignty)
It’s called the CIA. They did stuff like hunting terrorists back before it was turned into a partisan body whose sole duty was to churn out faulty intellegence.
Mr Mundane asked:
That would be like being a liberal Democrat!
Mr. Willis, I really enjoy your blog and make sure that i read it every day.From reading your blog i know that you are a big Superman fan.You are probably aware that the U.S. Post Office has issued a pane of stamps with the images of DCsuperheros including two for Superman.What could be neater thatn that.A card or a letter with the Superman stamps with a Metropolis post mark!
The Metropolis Post Office will put a Metropolis post mark on any cards or letter sent,inside a separate envelope and noted to the attention of the Post Master. Their address is as follows:
Metropolis Post Office
101 W 5th Street
Metropolis,Illinois 62960-9998
618 524-4921
I’m sorry, who traded arms with a member of the axis of evil for years? A secret deal that actually kept the Iranian hostages from being released while under Carter’s watch to swing the election? A deal that was brokered with the man who supposedly wanted to drive Israel into the sea but apparently had no trouble accepting a secret arms deal with that very nation and carried out by the Mossad? Wait, what about Osama bin Laden and the Mujahadeen?
Here’s one for the yearbook
How could Jacoby incorrectly interpret it if the phenomenon is so new, there s not a widely-accepted definition?
Well, it’s kinda like the term “moonbat” in this regard. “Moonbat” doesn’t have a Webster definition (or any for that matter), but it would be incorrect to interpret its definition to mean ‘a slice of moldy old American cheese’. This example is a bit exaggerated, but the principal behind it is pretty much the same.
Oh for chrissake… Its incorrect because the definition Jacoby uses does not really mesh with the typical usage of the word. In fact, the widely-accepted definition is basically as Greenwald/Ellers/Wilson/Ryan/Oh/Look/How/Clever/I/Am defines it. I said Webster’s, not “Widely-Accepted” because you said Webster’s, not “Widely-Accepted.” If you meant “Widely-Accepted” when you said Webster’s, then you were, in fact, even more wrong in that instance, given that there is, in fact, a widely accepted definition. So to review, it wont appear in Webster’s in anything like this usage because its too new a term, but there is in fact a widely accepted usage.
Honestly, what, are you under the impression youre winning this debate at this point? Do you think youve actually argued that the term is not defined as I (as well as Greenwald/Wilson/Ellers/Ryan/So/ Clever/I/Dont/Have/To/Address/The/Substance/Of/The/Argument) have argued? I think JWG was looking for examples to prove my definition is incorrect, has he found anything yet, do you think? You even mis-applied Greenwald’s definition to apply to situations where, as he describes in his article, it clearly wouldnt, making you complicit in the same error that Jacoby Himself commits. Are you simply ignorant, or intentionally trying to misl I’m asking at this point because, seriously, its getting to the point where it looks like you cant actually address the point, which means I’ll be forced, FORCED I tell you, to assume that you concede the point to me.
Of course your free to try attacking Greenwald/Ellers/Larry/Moe/Curly/ Joe/They’re/The/Funniest/Guys/I/Know for being an egomaniac or something yet again in the hope that that makes his criticism entirely invalid, who knows, maybe you’ll get bonus points or something, I dunno… have I fscking won yet?
How could Jacoby “incorrectly interpret” it if the phenomenon is so new, there’s not a widely-accepted definition? I know Greenwald/Ellers/Wilson would love to claim he speaks for the entire nation, but he doesn’t.
In the runup to the war, JWB was one of the greatest masturbators of all. Is this how you lick your wounds, JWG? Did the term sting you so deeply?
Let’s see…Oliver repeatedly claims that he supports killing terrorists. TomY and others support fighting the Taliban and al Qaida. So Rex comes up with his own definition of “chickenhawk” with a dozen qualifiers. However, he never bothered to say anything when these chickenhawk comments appeared from some regular commenters (among many, many others):
Frameone has claimed, “Here s the most official definition of chickenhawk I can find:”
and
AlexCorrigan has referred to “the chickenhawks neocons in the Bush administration who found ways to hide from fighting when they had the opportunity to serve.”
Mr.Curmudgeon claimed:
Jadegold pontificates:
“I d kill Al Qaeda - wherever they are. Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan. What I wouldn t do is invade and occupy countries where AQ has not been.”
Rejoice in all his wisdom, Ollie has single handedly solved the terrorist crisis. All we have to do is go to Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia and ask them to turn over members of al Queda. Then we kill them (but it’s not torture if libs do it). We should probably ask Iran and Syria to voluntarily hand over their al Queda residents while we are there, you know, for the convenience. Yemen will probably follow suit followed by the Palestinians. If they don’t turn them over to U.S. forces, we should send them invitations to a big birthday party for Osama Bin Laden, then when they arrive for the big party we arrest them! Oliver, you are a true genius…
Hey Leroy, I’m surprised you actually called them terrorists and not “Freedom Fighters”
Panic, you’re really great at fighting fake arguments. When you get your GED, will you then have the confidence to take on real ones made by actual people?
Tom-
#1 What is the fake argument?
Oliver states that the solution to the problem of terrorism is to simply “kill al Queda”
#2 It would help if Ollie explained how we do that.
#3 I have a degree from a real college.
#1 Sarcasm- You people seem to think that terrorists will simply turn themselves in. They are a reliable group.
#2 So President Bush caused this?
Do you remember a few planes that killed a few people on September 11, 2001
#3 Clown would have been a lot more fun, but I actually received an actual degree…
1) I don’t know, the shit about the birthday party, perhaps?
2) Fair enough, but in the meantime, would the people who led us into the worst foreign policy disaster of the past 30 years, and who the entire time were calling the opposition traitors and cowards mind showing a little fucking humilty?
3) Barber or Clown?
Wrong as usual. Got any evidence?
I served. Did you?