[sixties-l] Hypocritical, Cowardly Chicken-Hawk Armchair Generals (fwd)

From: sixties@lists.village.virginia.edu
Date: Sun Apr 28 2002 - 17:36:43 EDT

  • Next message: sixties@lists.village.virginia.edu: "[sixties-l] 75,000 marched to free Palestine, but was anyone listening? (fwd)"

    ---------- Forwarded message ----------
    Date: Sun, 28 Apr 2002 12:03:05 -0700
    From: radtimes <resist@best.com>
    Subject: Hypocritical, Cowardly Chicken-Hawk Armchair Generals

    Hypocritical, Cowardly Chicken-Hawk Armchair Generals

    http://www.lewrockwell.com/wallace/wallace36.html

    April 22, 2002
    by Bob Wallace
    bob.wallace@att.net

    There are some things I despise to the point I can't forgive. Chicken-Hawk
    Armchair Generals are one of them. People who tried as hard as they can to
    avoid military service, but now have become blood-thirsty warmongers, are
    lower than child molesters (they hurt many more people in fact kill them
    in case you're wondering how I can put someone lower than a pedophile). I
    don't hate these armchair generals. I'm disgusted by them and hold them in
    contempt.

    William Bennett and his bad back, Rush Limbaugh and the boil on his
    butt...guess what? I don't care! I suggest that both of them proclaim to
    the public they are going to get waivers and join the military. Then they
    can go to Afghanistan, or better yet, be the first wave into Iraq. Are they
    all talk? Do they talk the talk but not walk the walk? Do they not want
    people to know what they really are? What are the chances they'd be in the
    first wave of Higgins boats in Saving Private Ryan? I'd say: zero.

    And Bennett has the nerve to write a book titled, Why We Fight. What does he
    mean, "we"? He's not the one doing any fighting. The title should be, Why
    You Should Fight, and Why My Lack of Cojones Prevents Me From Joining You
    (at least he wrote this book, unlike The Book of Virtues, where he used
    others' stories and slapped his name on the volume).

    I think the same way about Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz. I expect them
    to get waivers and proclaim loudly to the public they are going into battle.
    I expect no less of Max Boot of The Wall Street Journal and the crowd at
    National Review (Buckley should really clean that place up the lack of
    education among the new crew is embarrassing).

    And if Donald Rumself wants to give press conferences in which he sneers at
    the press, why doesn't he give them from the front lines in Afghanistan?

    I expect everyone who is for this war to join the military and volunteer to
    be the first into battle. Otherwise, they're hypocrites, and I always
    remember what Jesus said about hypocrites "who sound a trumpet... in the
    streets, so that they may have glory in front of other men...they love
    standing...in the streets, that they may be seen by other men. I say to you,
    They already have their reward in that." Hmm...I wonder what he meant by the
    "reward" that hypocrites "already have"?

    War historian John Keegan, in his book, The Face of Battle, wrote that the
    greatest conqueror in history, Alexander the Great, led his men into battle.
    He was wounded several times. Yeah, maybe he was crazy, but he was brave,
    and certainly no hypocrite. And he certainly knew why he fought. And it
    wasn't to tell others to fight while he lounged at home getting fat on
    taxpayer money.

    After that, it was all downhill. Wellington stayed right at the limit of
    battle, and when hit with a bullet got just a bruise. U.S. Grant, overrated
    and underhearted, stayed out of the battle completely. He may have said,
    "War is Hell," but he also commented he never "felt as well" as he did when
    directing men as chesspieces, to die by the thousands. This means he didn't
    care that war is Hell; he enjoyed the whole thing immensely. He stayed
    completely out of the range of gunfire, couldn't stand the sight of blood,
    and had his food burned to a crisp so there wouldn't be the slightest trace
    of pink in it.

    Hitler was even more of coward then Grant; he never left his bunker. But
    Hitler stayed in Germany, where the war was being fought. Now we've got
    people who won't even go to the countries where the action is (unlike the
    journalists they're trying to shut up). Does this mean Hitler was braver
    than our glorious leaders? Even he was in combat in WWI, before he lost his
    guts.

    What next? The administration staying at home, in bed, in their jammies,
    directing war from their laptops while their mommies bring them cookies and
    milk? ("Cool! My dragon just ate all their peasants!")

    Do any of these people have any spine at all? Any of them? Are they all
    cowardly and evil, like Henry Kissinger, Robert McNarmara, Madeleine
    Albright? (I strongly suspect Albright is not a woman, just a really ugly
    guy).

    They should all be used as cannon fodder. Turnabout's fair play, right?
    McNamara's so old he's going to be dead and in Hell pretty soon. He'd be no
    loss at all. Neither would Kissinger or Albright. Since none of them has
    done anything useful (or moral) with their lives, we might as well use them
    as shields for real soldiers.

    I get the impression all of these ghouls think war is just some kind of
    game. They enjoy playing it, as long as others are the pieces they can push
    around on the game board. I suggest they become the pieces. If it was within
    my power, I would make it so, instantly.

    Why do so many people want to give up their freedom to false authority? Do
    they think people in the government are somehow so much smarter and more
    moral than we are that this gives them the right to sacrifice our lives? Ha!
    I'm smarter than Dubya, Dubya's smarter than Gore, Gore's smarter than Teddy
    "Where's My Underwear?" Kennedy, and my dog's more sober than Kennedy! (It's
    my other dog who's smarter than Kennedy and he's dead.)

    Do these people think they are indispensible? That their lives are more
    important than anyone else's? That the economy, or country, or world, would
    collapse without them? Well, I've got news for them the graveyards are
    full of people who thought they were indispensible. You could get rid of
    everyone in government, replace them with an equal amount of people picked
    at random from a phonebook, and there wouldn't be any change. If there was,
    it might even be for the better.

    The federal government sucks over $1.5 trillion per year out of peoples'
    pockets through taxation, and yet, with all that money, the feds failed
    completely to catch a bunch of dimbulbs who were giving off signs like crazy
    they were going to hijack planes and fly them into buildings. And these very
    same klutzes think they can run our lives, when they can't do their jobs?

    It appears that Dostoevsky was right: people will gladly give up their
    freedom to "miracle, mystery and authority." I see the "authority," as
    incompetent as it is, and with all the secrets I see the "mystery," but
    where are the miracles? After spending ten billion dollars in Afghanistan,
    why don't we have the country under control?

    The administration can't even conjure up a little teeny tiny miracle, like
    getting bin Laden's head on a platter, as was promised. The bumblers in the
    government still don't know where he's at! Instead, they present us with
    some stupid 20-year-old American kid and say, "So maybe we don't have Osama,
    but see what we've got for you instead? Take out your frustrations on him.
    Don't worry about him walking away free sentence first, verdict
    afterwards!" And I used to think Alice in Wonderland was only a children's
    fantasy.

    It's been estimated that in the 20th century up to 200 million people were
    murdered at the hands of various States. If there's anything that's
    permanently "weapons of mass destruction" it's States and those who run it.
    And yet the mass of people or is it sheeple? still trust the State, no
    matter how many people it kills. I find this just astonishing.

    I like to think people ultimately get what they deserve. You might say, "As
    you sow, so you shall reap." If you want to look at it from an Eastern point
    of view, consider it karma, which means, "the moral law of cause and
    effect." I like to think there is no difference at all between Heaven and
    Hell. You just become as C.S. Lewis suggested in his book, The Great
    Divorce what you really are.
    ------------
    Bob Wallace, a former newspaper reporter and editor, and an incurable lover
    of puns, lives in St. Louis.



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sun Apr 28 2002 - 17:43:58 EDT