Monday, December 04, 2006

Jonah Goldberg: We're Losing In Iraq Because We Haven't Killed Enough Civilians

This is one reason I think neoconservatives are disgusting. Jonah Goldberg, a right-wing chickenhawk who has never served in the military and has no clue what war is like, has a column in yesterday's State Journal in which he says that a big reason we're losing in Iraq is that we haven't killed enough Iraqi civilians. And in the very same sentence he says that the other part of the problem is that we haven't been willing to sacrifice enough American lives and treasure:

But it now seems that the light footprint hasn't made enough of an impression on Iraqi soil or Iraqi society. By trying to inflict as little collateral damage as possible, by trying to fight a war on the cheap, we inadvertently emboldened our enemies by what appeared to be a lack of will.

If he wasn't such a coward Jonah would be in Iraq doing his bit for this bloody war he wanted so badly instead of writing columns calling for others to make sacrifices he isn't willing to make himself.

Typical conservative prick.

(Sorry, but the link to Goldberg's article doesn't go to the State Journal because I couldn't find it on their website even though it was in the print version)

14 comments:

Chris said...

Since it seems you believe you have to have military service before you are allowed to have an opinion on wars or military matters

May I be so bold to ask you the question I ask every Dem who throws out the Chickenhawk charge.

Have you served in the military? I couldn't find it anywhere here, not that I looked all that hard. But I need to know since you used the line "a right-wing chickenhawk who has never served in the military and has no clue what war is like"

I am just trying to find out what makes you more knowledgeable than Mr Goldberg?

Thanks

Other Side said...

If you had been this polite the first time, we never would have had half the issues between us like we do.

In answer to the unasked part of your question: You'll find very few Dems who are callous enough to suggest others fight their battles.

And Reform Dem, watch out for this guy. He has a temper.

Chris said...

I dont believe I was talking to you was I Tim? agreements are not agreements if only one party follows them.

Other Side said...

Sorry. If you want to communicate on the Internet, Chris, you risk others getting involved in the conversation.

I apologized for my initial outburst. You escalated it.

Regardless, Reform Dem, don't get involved with this guy. His need to know is just so he can pop off at you.

Chris said...

Tim my very simple and very well worded question has nothing to do with you.

The man is making a charge and I am asking for his frame of reference.

You of all people know I have issues with Libs who like yourself have never served but then turn around and try to claim some warped moral high ground with your lame and idiotic chickenhawk charge.

I have never been here before today just happened to see it on B&S Wis blogroll so I popped in and first post I see is the chickenhawk one so I asked the usual question. Not of you but of the blog owner and now I am waiting quietly and politely for an answer. I did not escalate anything I simple pointed out you were once again breaking an agreement which was meant to avoid meeting engagements such as this.

gee how was that for a terrible temper I really sound out of control don't I?

If he choose to answer my question great if not oh well I tried.

Other Side said...

No. I'm very impressed, Chris. There is hope.

Russell Wallace said...

Tim, thanks for the warning about Chris, but I bait freepers for fun, so I think I can handle him. I may be a liberal, but I can kick conservative ass with the best of them.

Russell Wallace said...

Nope, I haven't served in the military, Chris, but what makes me more knowledgeable than Mr. Goldberg is that I was right about the war in Iraq, and he (and presumably you) were wrong. Kind of simple, really.

Just so we're on the same wavelength, here's the definition of chickenhawk from Wikipedia:

"Chickenhawk is an epithet used in United States politics to criticize a politician, bureaucrat, or commentator who votes for war, supports war, commands a war, or develops war policy, but has not personally served in the military. Generally, it is not a label applied to essentially "dovish" leaders who support defensive wars, "humanitarian interventions," or UN operations."

If you feel I've used the term incorrectly in regard to Mr. Goldberg please feel free to point out my error.

Chris said...

First just for the record I have never read Free Republic in my life.

I am sorry I have to throw the bullshit flag on any lib who has no military service but then tries to use that same lack of service to deny Conservative the right to voice their opinion on a War or Military matters

The whole Chickenhawk concept is lame that if you support Military action you must enlist and fight or you will be labeled a fraud by the left.

Wars are fought by a very small percentage of Americas population even in World War 2 a war where were fighting for our survival as a nation only 12% of the population wore a military uniform And they had to use a Military draft to get a large number of them.

The Chickenhawk Charge is just an attempt to shout down conservative supporters of the war I was just recently called a chickenhawk not because I didn't serve because I have but because I have not reenlisted to fight in this war.

You have no more insight into the Military or what war is like than Jonah Goldberg. But until you are willing to put on a military uniform yourself you should lay off the calling others who have no service cowards or chickenhawk.

They have just as much right to their views on the War as you do.

Whats next if you were in the Military but not in a combat unit will you be a Chickenhawk since you didn't actually fight? Do you understand how small the actual percentage of the population that actually sees combat? Where do you draw the line with who gets an opinion.

As I stated before the Chickenhawk charges are nothing more then the typical Liberal tactic of shouting down those they disagree with, you know that tactic it is all the rage on Liberal Universities lately The only free speech you on the left believe in is your own.

Sorry that go so long winded.

well Tim was I well behaved enough for you?

Other Side said...

Incoherent, but well behaved, Chris.

I think the issue regarding the term "chickenhawk" boils down to this:

Goldberg and his ilk could have served if they had chosen to.

Consequently they are fair game. And, ANYONE, regardless of having served or not, is right to call them on their hypocrisy. Mr. Wallace is not the one calling for more troops in Iraq. Mr. Wallace is not the one suggesting more death is the answer.

No one is questioning your right to speak, Chris, nor the rights of other conservatives, like Goldberg.

I like your site, Mr. Wallace. I'll link here to see what's up occasionally.

Russell Wallace said...

Hi Chris, I take it you agree that I applied the term chickenhawk correctly to Mr. Goldberg. Glad we got that settled. And I never said you were a freeper, only that I find them entertaining.

You need to realize that it's not just the military service angle that has resulted in the widespread acceptance and use of the term chickenhawk. It's the broader idea that conservatives as a group are unwilling to make any of the sacrifices necessary to support the war you all so desperately wanted.

Dead soldiers? Hide the caskets and for God's sake don't go to a funeral if you're the President. Injured and sick vets? Deny them services and cut their benefits. Three hundred billion dollars? Cut taxes and borrow every penny so the war won't become unpopular.

Notice a pattern?

If you support a war you have to be willing to pay the price. While that price is indeed different for all of us, as you've stated, it must still be paid by everyone.

This is a matter of fundamental moral and fiscal responsibility, and conservatives have utterly failed in this solemn obligation to our country.

So excuse me if I have a hard time taking conservatives seriously when they whine about being called chickenhawks. Actions speak louder than words.

Chris said...

nice try Russ but please dont put words in my mouth I do not agree with you on Jonah being a chickenhawk

but I will stop there since I know it is a waste of time

You and Tim enjoy having stabbed American in the back for a second time. Revile in our defeat you sure worked hard enough for it, you should enjoy the results of all your hard work.

Russell Wallace said...

Actually Chris, it's you and your fellow conservatives who have destroyed our international credibility, run our military into the ground, and buried us under a mountain of debt. You're the ones who have stabbed America in the back.

You still can't admit you were wrong, so instead of trying to actually deal with the mess you made, you spend all your time trying to blame the left for your own failures.

You started the war in Iraq, and you ran it exactly the way you wanted to. It's a fucking disaster, and you have no one to blame but yourselves.

So start acting like a grownup and take some responsibility for the consequences of your decisions.

Other Side said...

Outstanding. I wish I had thought up that last response. I hope you don't mind ... but I'm going to place it on my blog.

Note how Chris' grammar and spelling eroded each succeeding comment.