Sunday, February 26, 2006

A New Emblem For Young Republicans: The Wanna Be Marines


By Elaine Meinel Supkis

Elmo, one of our readers, vet, father, Texan, finds a great webpage, the New Hampshire Gazette. The chick hawk logo comes from their webpage.

From Blind In Texas:
Chickenhawk n. A person enthusiastic about war, provided someone else fights it; particularly when that enthusiasm is undimmed by personal experience with war; most emphatically when that lack of experience came in spite of ample opportunity in that person’s youth.
The New Hampshire Gazette.

The New Hampshire Gazette is an amusing site. Here is a fine editorial about war in general refering to the Civil War:
That is what makes it so hard to ascertain why so many men (and at least a few women, in disguise and otherwise) subjected themselves to the unusual brutality and suffering of that war. Loyalty to the Union obviously played much less of a role than politicians would have us believe, because the vast majority of eligible Northern males shunned military service when preserving the Union was the only official aim of the war. Nebulous notions of freedom came later in the conflict, and devotion to the freedom of black slaves would be a more credible reaction among enlightened moderns than amid the prevailing bigotry of that era.

It was money that seemed to bring many Civil War soldiers into the ranks, if it did not constitute the primary appeal for most of them. The first wave of recruits included legions of unemployed, seeking regular pay and support for their families; then came farmers and factory operatives of modest means, who enlisted for municipal bounties raised by that majority of voters who wished to avoid conscription. As the war consumed more men the government raised each town’s quota of volunteers, and bounties soared.
Obvious parallels to now. I want to thank Elmo for finding this site, the internet has grown so vastly, it is a giant forest now and we are the squirrels who run from tree to tree, picking up the nuts, a bounty of nuts because of the many nuts growing on GOP trees, man, are they insane.

Seven soldiers were blown up yesterday as all of Iraq blew apart. More will die tomorrow and the next day as we struggle to control the Pandora's Box of passion and hate and this time, there is no Hope at the bottom of this chest, only graves, many of them, all wasted lives.

8 Comments:

At 24 February, 2006 10:29, Blogger Elmo said...

Your welcome, thank you!

Your comic is priceless, every "W" flunky should have one of those t-shirts!

 
At 24 February, 2006 12:40, Blogger Elaine Supkis said...

I have been so very busy and with an infected nose, not enough visits to friends, Elmo. Still luv ya.

 
At 24 February, 2006 14:56, Blogger AAAA said...

The Gazette is the best. Here in NH, we are proud of our nations oldest newspaper.

 
At 24 February, 2006 15:34, Blogger Karl said...

Thanks for the post, Elaine. I've been a bit under the weather these past few days.

 
At 27 February, 2006 15:04, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Based on this chickenhawk post over the weekend (as noted by Tbogg (www.tbogg.blogspot.com)): http://vodkapundit.com/archives/008638.php

there is a really interesting discussion-argument going on over his more recent post: http://vodkapundit.com/archives/008644.php

here: http://www.vodkapundit.com/mt/mt-comments.cgi?entry_id=8644

 
At 28 February, 2006 07:59, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The Soldiers Speak. Will President Bush Listen?

By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF
Published: February 28, 2006


When President Bush held a public meeting with troops by satellite last fall, they were miraculously upbeat. And all along, unrepentant hawks (most of whom have never been to Iraq) have insisted that journalists are misreporting Iraq and that most soldiers are gung-ho about their mission.

Hogwash! A new poll to be released today shows that U.S. soldiers overwhelmingly want out of Iraq — and soon.

The poll is the first of U.S. troops currently serving in Iraq, according to John Zogby, the pollster. Conducted by Zogby International and LeMoyne College, it asked 944 service members, "How long should U.S. troops stay in Iraq?"

Only 23 percent backed Mr. Bush's position that they should stay as long as necessary. In contrast, 72 percent said that U.S. troops should be pulled out within one year. Of those, 29 percent said they should withdraw "immediately."

That's one more bit of evidence that our grim stay-the-course policy in Iraq has failed. Even the American troops on the ground don't buy into it — and having administration officials pontificate from the safety of Washington about the need for ordinary soldiers to stay the course further erodes military morale.

While the White House emphasizes the threat from non-Iraqi terrorists, only 26 percent of the U.S. troops say that the insurgency would end if those foreign fighters could be kept out. A plurality believes that the insurgency is made up overwhelmingly of discontented Iraqi Sunnis.

So what would it take to win in Iraq? Maybe that was the single most depressing finding in this poll.

By a two-to-one ratio, the troops said that "to control the insurgency we need to double the level of ground troops and bombing missions." And since there is zero chance of that happening, a majority of troops seemed to be saying that they believe this war to be unwinnable.

 
At 28 February, 2006 13:41, Anonymous Samwise Galenorn said...

First off, yes, I am a traditional lefty. I think that the war is wrong (it is based on lies). And I think it is a complete load of chicken shit to use the term chickenhawk. This is America, where the military is subject to civilian control, and being in the military does NOT give you a special enlightened status to comment on anything. A veteran's or non veteran's opinion on the war (whether it is for or against) are EQUALLY VALID!!!

The overwhelming thing we have to do, whether people are for or against the war, is to put pressure on the Bush administration to adopt a realistic and intelligent winning Iraqi plan.
My take on this is that the Bush administration does not care whether we 'get the job done' or not. Instead, he lead us into Iraq in order to justify a huge government spending program that is benefiting government contractors. He's also using the Iraq war in order to make Republicans look better. He keeps refering to 'The war on Terror', not by it's correct name 'The war in Iraq' (soon to be retitled 'The civil war in Iraq and America is in the fcken middle of it oh fcky doodles!!). He keeps linking 9/11 to Iraq. He's using the military as a pawn in his unjust government grab for power.

Here's an attempt at an intelligent solution: Let the Iraq government dissolve, and let Iraq fracture into three countries:
1. Kurdistan (the Kurds to the north)
2. Central Iraq (a Sunni stronghold)
3. Southern Iraq (a Shi'ite stronghold)
The Kurds are all ready to set up their own government. They've had an economic system in place for over a decade, so that will be the biggest success story.
For Southern Iraq, we simply retreat, draw a line and say 'We'll stay out of your way'. The Shi'ites are very mistrustful of American intervention, so if they don't want us, then we stay out of their way.
For Central Iraq, all of our american forces can be concentrated to just that part of Iraq. This will increase the concentration of American troops. We have the Iraqi police force work one on one with American troops when they go on patrols. This will help to insure the safety of Iraqi police personal so they are no longer subject to target practice, and will give credebility to Americans, to the general public. The Iraqi police force could be our public relations liaison.

There. An attempt at a realistic plan for Iraq that is based on reality. And to recap, no chickenhawk comment from me.

If you choose to critize my plan, go ahead. But try to come up with a better plan, whether from the left or right, because the Bush plan (lack of a plan) is not working. Period.

 
At 28 February, 2006 16:56, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Wow - finally an intelligent observation on the Civil War. And from a Yankee, nontheless!

My g-g-gf, who owned no slaves, volunteered for the Confederacy. His brother, who owned five slaves, volunteered for the Union. Both were older, early 40s.

Who here thinks they were willing to kill each other over slavery? Anyone? Anyone?

By volunteering for the Confederacy my g-g-gf knew he would suffer economically, in that he was then making a good living as a blacksmith among other business ventures. His brother the farmer knew - should the Union win - that he would be unable to run his farm as productively as before.

Who here thinks they were willing to kill each other for the pay? Anyone? Anyone?

 

Post a Comment

<< Home