I have a right to be a chickenhawk
Ben Shapiro addressing young Republicans
Atrios points this out
The virgin Ben Shapiro explains why he's too good to serve in the military ( we don't link to rightwing sites)
The "chickenhawk" argument is dishonest. It is dishonest because the principle of republicanism is based on freedom of choice about behavior (as long as that behavior is legal) as well as freedom of speech about political issues. We constantly vote on activities with which we may or may not be intimately involved. We vote on police policy, though few of us are policemen; we vote on welfare policy, though few of us either work in the welfare bureaucracy or have been on welfare; we vote on tax policy, even if some of us don't pay taxes. The list goes on and on. Representative democracy necessarily means that millions of us vote on issues with which we have had little practical experience. The "chickenhawk" argument -- which states that if you haven't served in the military, you can't have an opinion on foreign policy -- explicitly rejects basic principles of representative democracy.No, Ben, you're a chickenhawk because you expect other people to do what you want done. If you think the Iraq war is so important, why are you not serving? While you construct a strawman argument, that's all it is, you avoid the key question: why is your service not required in a war you support?
The "chickenhawk" argument also explicitly rejects the Constitution itself. The Constitution provides that civilians control the military. The president of the United States is commander-in-chief, whether or not he has served in the military. Congress controls the purse strings and declares war, no matter whether any of its members have served in the military or not. For foreign policy doves to high-handedly declare that military service is a prerequisite to a hawkish foreign policy mindset is not only dangerous, but directly conflicts with the Constitution itself.
Because all this blather about the right to express your opinion pales before the sacrifice of men like Edward "Augie" Schroder, a Marine recently killed in Iraq. His parents opposed the war, still oppose it, but their son served honorably and died in the service of his country.
You can argue Con Law all day long, but this is not about argument, but action. If this war is so important, you should be serving in it.
You say Michael Moore is anti-military, despite his raising supplies and money for soldiers serving in Iraq. You and your coward friends are the ones who are anti-military.
But let's have an honest discussion here: you don't want to wind up like Brian Montgomery, who left a wife and child behind, dead. Instead of saying you don't want to die in Iraq, you through up a blizzard of words and justifications for rank cowardice. You can compare being a police officer to being a Marine rifleman all you want, all day long, and the simple fact is that you do not have the courage of your convictions, the belief that you, personally, must sacrifice for your cause. It's not an opinion. People are dying in Iraq every day. There is a desperate need for combat infantry. It is as real as your law books.
I would suggest you and your coward friends be honest and say Iraq is not worth me leaving law school and signing up for the Marines and becoming a rifleman. Well, there were 20 Ohio reservists who put their lives on hold to serve their country. And at far too young an age, they are now interred in that Ohio soil they once walked on.
Timothy Bell, Sr., with his wife Vivian at his side,
receives the U.S. flag from Gunnery Sgt.
Berry Baker, at the funeral services held
for his son, Lance Cpl., Timothy Bell, Jr., 22,
of West Chester, Ohio, at Arlington National Cemetery
I wonder how you would explain to these people how you going to Harvard Law and advocating a war you will not serve in is a good thing. Would you talk about your right to an opinion and how we (being people other than you) have to stop Islamofascism. Would you tell them about the ultimate success of the Iraq war.
What exactly would you say to them to explain why it was OK for their son to die in combat while you support that same war you feel no need to serve in. How do you explain that permanent void in their lives? That it will all work out in the end? Really? So their son will be ressurected? No?
Or would you just say that you are better than their son. You go to Harvard Law and have a bright future and don't have to do something as stupid as be a Marine rifleman. That you just had better parents who could do more for you, and it's just the luck of the draw. And that people like LCpl Bell are better off being a Marine rather than poor white trash, and people like you exist to make decisions they couldn't comprehend, like illegally attacking Iraq.
Because, when you get down to it, that is exactly what you are saying.
I know this is all a big game for you, but for 1800+ families, it is real and permanent. A part of their future will never, ever exist. And you can toss around all the names and insults you want, but at the end of the day, you support a war you will not fight in.
posted by Steve @ 9:55:00 AM