Donate to my Legal Fund

Sunday, August 13, 2006

Hard-line neo-cons don't want a ceasefire

Here's an excellent piece from by Jim Lobe on how hard-line neo-conservatives are opposing the UN brokered ceasefire in the Israel/Lebanon war. The question I have asked many times before and will continue to ask is why, if these people love military conflict so much, don't they ever enlist? I'm sure either the US Army or the IDF would be very happy to have them.
ps I've just been informed that our good friend Stephen Pollard points out on his webblog that Charles Krauthammer, one of the people Lobe mentions in his piece, is in a wheelchair. Fair enough, we can excuse him from military service. But what about the rest of them? And come to think of it, what about you Stephen?
A bit of active military service in Iraq would do wonders for your waistline.


Miguel said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
LSaha said...

So a disabled person, who wouldn't be allowed to join the armed forces and therefore would never have to face death on a battlefield, is permitted to voice their opinion?

What about an OAP? What about someone too out of shape or weak to pass the fitness tests?

There's no forced conscription here or in the US, so all the people in the armed forces are adults who choose to enlist and accept that the decision to go to war (or not) is not their's to make - though, obviously, they can vote for whomever they want.

Politicians aren't elected to serve in the military but to make decisions on our behalf.

It is the nature of all free countries that civilians (including everyone from greengrocers to commentators), through politicians, control the armed forces by voicing their opinions, having debate and ultimately voting a certain way.

Am I entitled to say that we were right to fight in WWII, despite all the death of Allied soldiers, despite never having been in the military myself?

If I am so entitled, why should I not express an opinion on the merits of any other war?

Perhaps you think that the final decision should rest only with the military? Should they be empowered to refuse their government's instructions? Should they also be able to start wars against the wishes of the government? After all they are the people who have to fight and die.

Neil Clark said...

When you enlist for active service in Iraq, Mr Chimpanzee. As the war is being led by a chimp, I'm sure they'll accept you.

Neil Clark said...

Your last reply contained a libellous claim, Mr chimpanzee, but if you delete that part and send in the rest again, I'll happily post. fyi I've never depicted Belarus as a 'veritable paradise on earth' I've merely sought to correct some of the misinformation about the country that is routinely bandied about.

TheRedLeopard said...

Pollard and the other Wankers for War will never, ever go near a battlefield and will all die in their bed at ripe old ages. While thousands more working class British, American and Israeli soldiers will die in the wars that they have helped bring about.

Peter Nolan said...

Neil, by your own logic you yourself aren't allowed to protest or object to the war either if you don't fight.

Miguel said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
BxCapricorn said...

Sorry Girls, but Neil is right. Talking tough from a pulpit, jowls quivering, is typical for those that use others. War Hawks are normally guys who have never served, been shot at, or known the mindless isolation and fear of war. They are the fans at sporting events. Only worse. They are not "wannabes". They are users. They use up proud young men as their Viagra for their own private purposes.

Ross said...

The whole point about opposing a ceasefire in the Lebanon conflict is the belief that it will lead to further conflict later on, when Hezbollah may be stronger. The idea that they don't want a ceasefire because they have a general love of war is absurd. It is like arguing that someone who believes firemen should tackle burning buildings does so because he likes fires.