Useful Idiots of the Day

[Ziggurat]

These highlights show the reasons which they fought for, which are directly related to trade, wealth, and self-regulation, three things the colonies were quite used to, until the Brittish government changed its mind, post French and Indian War.

(bold mine)

You're right. Economics was a major part of the American revolution. But as you also correctly point out, it was something the colonies had and which they were being deprived of which they fought for. It's much more difficult for the general population to fight for something it has never had in the first place. Which still leaves the problem of tyranny and oppression in third-world countries unsolved by the example of the American revolution: they're stuck in positions where poor governance is preventing such economic development, and without that development, they cannot topple oppressive regimes from within. It becomes a perverse chicken-and-egg problem. The only realistic hope to escape this in many places is external intervention, but to succeed, that generally has to include both reform of economics AND government. And many oppressive governments simply will not yield to any pressure to reform short of direct force, so economic-only "Marshall Plans" are doomed from the start. The Marshall Plan only worked in the context of military occupation.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

(bold mine)

You're right. Economics was a major part of the American revolution. But as you also correctly point out, it was something the colonies had and which they were being deprived of which they fought for. It's much more difficult for the general population to fight for something it has never had in the first place. Which still leaves the problem of tyranny and oppression in third-world countries unsolved by the example of the American revolution: they're stuck in positions where poor governance is preventing such economic development, and without that development, they cannot topple oppressive regimes from within. It becomes a perverse chicken-and-egg problem. The only realistic hope to escape this in many places is external intervention, but to succeed, that generally has to include both reform of economics AND government. And many oppressive governments simply will not yield to any pressure to reform short of direct force, so economic-only "Marshall Plans" are doomed from the start. The Marshall Plan only worked in the context of military occupation.

Well, they're stuck in those positions now. Victorian era imperial policies, such as buying grain futures on crops in India caused world wide famines several times. El Nino droughts, and crop failures were common before european empires took over China, India, and other countries. The problem was that the preexisting models, such as the Chinesse government shuffling around centrally administered grain, and the neighboring Indian communities giving food to villages with crop failures, were no longer in place. As it was, framers got little or no money for reduced or failed crops, and could not afford to buy enough grain to feed themselves, at grain's market price, as an example.

Western mismanagement of the poor nations of the world is mostly why they're poor now. You're right, they're in a very deep hole, and they don't have the power to free themselves the way we did.

I don't have a solution to the problem of deeply entrenched, agressive, rouge nations. Military action may be the only solution, if they chose to imperil us, or other nations. I do have a solution for poor, exploited nations which may become rouge nations, we need to woo them, and make them rich.

 

[Ziggurat]

I do have a solution for poor, exploited nations which may become rouge nations, we need to woo them, and make them rich.

That's a tricky business too, because the question of who is "them". It's not a trivial problem, because the people most likely to get rich from aid, for example, isn't the people themselves but corrupt government officials. Development aid often ends up as a subsidy for corruption, and you always get more of what you subsidize. Trade works much better, and that's why getting rid of agricultural subsidies needs to be such an imperative for the developed world (something I suspect we're in agreement about). But it takes time to really sink in, and other events can overtake that progress in the mean time if the country is unlucky.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

That's a tricky business too, because the question of who is "them". It's not a trivial problem, because the people most likely to get rich from aid, for example, isn't the people themselves but corrupt government officials. Development aid often ends up as a subsidy for corruption, and you always get more of what you subsidize. Trade works much better, and that's why getting rid of agricultural subsidies needs to be such an imperative for the developed world (something I suspect we're in agreement about). But it takes time to really sink in, and other events can overtake that progress in the mean time if the country is unlucky.

Assume for a moment, that we employ a good model for fair economic development in poor nations, and we manage to defeat or keep in check rouge nations.

Would this mean fewer wars, and would you feel more proud of your nation's military and government?

 

[Ziggurat]

Assume for a moment, that we employ a good model for fair economic development in poor nations, and we manage to defeat or keep in check rouge nations.

Would this mean fewer wars, and would you feel more proud of your nation's military and government?

I suspect that would mean fewer wars, though not zero. I would indeed feel more proud of my nation's government, but I'm not sure it would make a difference about my opinion of the military (which I'm already proud of). They do the job that is asked of them, and for the most part do so quite admirably, and it is not their responsibility to get civilian government to behave better or even to determine what jobs it is that they do. I do not want them to try, either, because I value civilian control of the military (and so do many in the military itself). That last bit might be a bit tangential to what you're trying to get at, but I thought I'd put it out there anyways.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

I suspect that would mean fewer wars, though not zero. I would indeed feel more proud of my nation's government, but I'm not sure it would make a difference about my opinion of the military (which I'm already proud of). They do the job that is asked of them, and for the most part do so quite admirably, and it is not their responsibility to get civilian government to behave better or even to determine what jobs it is that they do. I do not want them to try, either, because I value civilian control of the military (and so do many in the military itself). That last bit might be a bit tangential to what you're trying to get at, but I thought I'd put it out there anyways.

No that last bit was an entirely fair addition. I meant to ask, would you be more proud of the military's accomplisments, aside from the inviduals involved?

 

[rikzilla]

Assume for a moment, that we employ a good model for fair economic development in poor nations, and we manage to defeat or keep in check rouge nations.

Would this mean fewer wars, and would you feel more proud of your nation's military and government?

I cannot, even for a moment, assume those things. You cannot even properly define them. What is a "good" model for "fair" economic development in poor nations anyway? Should we say a magic word and wipe out corruption? And what on earth is a "rouge" nation? (I'm not normally pedantic but now others are copying the mistake.) Are you suggesting they're slightly commie? Not red; but rouge... It's "rogue" BTW.

Sorry but your philosophy is comically naive. What makes me proud of our military is their skill, determination, and courage in doing their duty. They're competent and proven winners....opinion from the Iraqi Information Minister, AFP and Al Jazeera notwithstanding. They defeat our enemies. (yes "our" yours and mine) That makes me proud.

-z

 

[ImaginalDisc]

I cannot, even for a moment, assume those things. You cannot even properly define them. What is a "good" model for "fair" economic development in poor nations anyway? Should we say a magic word and wipe out corruption? And what on earth is a "rouge" nation? (I'm not normally pedantic but now others are copying the mistake.) Are you suggesting they're slightly commie? Not red; but rouge... It's "rogue" BTW.

Sorry but your philosophy is comically naive. What makes me proud of our military is their skill, determination, and courage in doing their duty. They're competent and proven winners....opinion from the Iraqi Information Minister, AFP and Al Jazeera notwithstanding. They defeat our enemies. (yes "our" yours and mine) That makes me proud.

-z

"Good" in this context means "effective" and "fair" means "all people within the country have as equal an oppurtunity for advancement as any other, and the system does not exploit any group."

Hmmm, it's "rogue", true, but considering how found we used to be of calling our enemies "red", the misspelling's appropriate.

I do not doubt our soldiers' courage, or dedication. I do however, question their competence and "proven winner" status. Osama was appearantly as good as dead, and he's nowhere to be found. We got platitudes from generals that the insurgency in Iraq was going to end, and it's gotten worse. The military is not as competent, and it doesn't have as great a win record as you seem to suggest. Each individual solder is, I am sure, doing their job well, and with great personnal courage. The system as a whole is another story.

rik, it's possible to think the collective entity's got problems, without also thinking every soldier's an amoral goon.

I used to think soldiers were universally ********, but webfusion's entirely changed my mind. I've just known too many asinine soldiers, and I let personal experiances bias me. Bias is bad.

 

[zenith-nadir]

Well as we are peacefully debating things went from bad to worse in Gaza.

As you read the story ask yourself where the hell are the Palestinian Authority security personel...

Masked militants of the Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades, an offshoot of Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas' Fatah Party, use a bulldozer to plough through a section of a concrete wall on the border between Egypt the Gaza Strip, in Rafah.(AFP/Said Kahtib)

Palestinian youths celebrate after masked militants of the Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades, an offshoot of Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas' Fatah Party, used a bulldozer to plough through a section of a concrete wall on the border between Egypt the Gaza Strip, in Rafah.(AFP/Said Khatib)

Jan 4, 2006

RAFAH, Gaza Strip Jan 4, 2006 — Hundreds of angry Palestinians streamed into Egypt on Wednesday after militants with stolen bulldozers broke through a border wall, and two Egyptian troops were killed and 30 were wounded by gunfire in the rampage.

About 3,000 Egyptian Interior Ministry troops who initially had no orders to fire swarmed the border but were forced to withdraw about a half-mile, said security forces Lt. Sameh el-Antablyan, who announced the casualties.

The scene was one of utter chaos. An Egyptian armored vehicle was burning and hundreds of Palestinians could be seen crouched in farm fields just inside Egypt.

A witness said three Palestinians were injured one seriously, when a troop carrier crushed him against a wall. Police imposed a curfew on the Egyptian side, all shops were closed, and authorities cut electricity, plunging the scene in near total darkness.

The Rafah crossing was handed to Palestinian control, under European supervision, as part of a U.S.-brokered deal with Israel last month. Since then, the crossing was forced to shut down several times during attacks by gunmen.

{emphasis mine}

Wow. The Egyptians shot back, imposed a curfew, closed shops and cut electricity. They sound almost as eeeeeevil as the dirty stinking Israelis oppressing the Palestinians like that.


{edited to add}

I really hope, with all due respect, that the anti-Israel JREF crowd is paying close attention to these militant actions. I hope it opens their eyes and makes them more knowledgable as to who these terrorists really are and the lengths they will go to. It should also tell you alot about how the Palestinian Authority works...or in many cases...does not work - even after several peace treaties and hundreds of public pledges and promises.

These groups are nothing more than plain old run of the mill terrorists who the useful idiots in Europe and the USA convinced you were simply "resisting the occupation".

 

[Ziggurat]

No that last bit was an entirely fair addition. I meant to ask, would you be more proud of the military's accomplisments, aside from the inviduals involved?

To be honest, I'm not actually sure, since if the military is less active, then chances are that I'm simply going to think about it less (and in that sense might be "less proud" of it). But that's still what I would ideally want: a military that did not actually have to fight any wars, whose mere presence was sufficient to accomplish the goals which can't be accomplished by diplomatic and economic means alone.

But since we face problems which preclude my ideal reality from existing (and probably always will), the best course of action isn't to try to imitate how we would behave if things were ideal, which means that less fighting wars on our part is not necessarily better.

But to get more directly at what I think you're after, I am proud of our military because of how well they fight wars and how well the would fight if even greater need arose, not because they fight wars. In that sense, my pride in them is not contingent on how many wars they fight. It is their job to finish wars, not to decide if or when they start.

 

[Skeptic]

Mycroft, Skeptic, you're both basically right. That's why I advocate a more prosperous, free and therefore more peaceful world. I don't like being forced to chose between being a cog in a bloody machine, and being a free-loader.

Well, actually, you are an admitted free-loader who describes those who guard you when you sleep as "cogs in a bloody machine", because it soothes your consciousness, and makes you feel your freeloading is some sort of moral act.

That's OK--your behavior is nothing new. Your type existed 2000 years ago as well, when Epictetus famously said about them that "The brave man is called a fool--by the coward." Or, to use your own language, the brave man is called a cog in a bloody machine by the self-admitted freeloader.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

Mycroft, Skeptic, you're both basically right. That's why I advocate a more prosperous, free and therefore more peaceful world. I don't like being forced to chose between being a cog in a bloody machine, and being a free-loader.

Well, actually, you are an admitted free-loader who describes those who guard you when you sleep as "cogs in a bloody machine", because it soothes your consciousness, and makes you feel your freeloading is some sort of moral act.

That's OK--your behavior is nothing new. Your type existed 2000 years ago as well, when Epictetus famously said about them that "The brave man is called a fool--by the coward." Or, to use your own language, the brave man is called a cog in a bloody machine by the self-admitted freeloader.

Let's see what I have said about soldiers today.

B) At worst, soliders are people, like any other, being asked to do the wrong thing. At best, they save the world. That's just like anyother person, be they a school teacher, soldier, doctor, or lawyer.

I don't oppose all militaries in principle, I oppose our military, right now, because of how it's been behaving since WWII. The WWII U.S. military was, overall, completely leaving aside Dresden, and the post war purchase of Japanesse biological and chemical weapon research, a thing to be quite proud of.

The colonist however, were very upset that their fathers, sons and brothers had fought and died in the war, and been told that the Empire would pick up the monetary cost. The colonists had their tricorn hats in a twist at having thier blood sacrifice for the Empire so callously scoffed at, and then being exploited for it.

I do not doubt our soldiers' courage, or dedication. I do however, question their competence and "proven winner" status. Osama was appearantly as good as dead, and he's nowhere to be found. We got platitudes from generals that the insurgency in Iraq was going to end, and it's gotten worse. The military is not as competent, and it doesn't have as great a win record as you seem to suggest. Each individual solder is, I am sure, doing their job well, and with great personnal courage. The system as a whole is another story.

rik, it's possible to think the collective entity's got problems, without also thinking every soldier's an amoral goon.

I used to think soldiers were universally ********, but webfusion's entirely changed my mind. I've just known too many asinine soldiers, and I let personal experiances bias me. Bias is bad.

Today, I have been critical of the U.S. military, expressed regret at having held a bias against soliders, personnally, said they are courageous and dedicated, noted that, in at least one historical event, the sacrifce of many soliders was insulted by their government.

I also was critical of the military, as a collective entity. Notice how a person can, for example, be critical of Kansas, without automatically thinking all people in Kansas are bad.

Please explain to me where I attacked soldiers for being soldiers.

 

[Skeptic]

Today, I have been critical of the U.S. military, expressed regret at having held a bias against soliders, personnally, said they are courageous and dedicated, noted that, in at least one historical event, the sacrifce of many soliders was insulted by their government.

Please explain to me where I attacked soldiers for being soldiers.

Because in your view, those same brave and dedicated soldiers have been brainswahsed/misled/suckered into being "cogs in a bloody machine" a.k.a. the US Armed Forces. In your view, soldiers might be brave, but they are still fools: if they only "knew the truth" (that Mr. Imagine "Pacifist" Disk had discovered), they surely would have also refused to be "cogs in a bloody machine". If you don't hate soliders, you surely pity them.

You seem not to understand that most soldiers, far from needing your "explanation" of how stupid they were to behave bravely for such an unworthy, disgusting cause as the US Army (which is simply a slightly more polite way of calling them fools, precisely what Epictetus said the likes of you always do) reject your entire view of the Armed Forces as a cowardly excuse for freeloading. They don't want or need you to "rescue" them from the awful "Armed Forces brainwashing" you are so sure is going on, thankyouverymuch.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

Because in your view, those same brave and dedicated soldiers have been brainswahsed/misled/suckered into being "cogs in a bloody machine" a.k.a. the US Armed Forces. In your view, soldiers might be brave, but they are still fools: if they only "knew the truth" (that Mr. Imagine "Pacifist" Disk had discovered), they surely would have also refused to be "cogs in a bloody machine". If you don't hate soliders, you surely pity them.

You seem not to understand that most soldiers, far from needing your "explanation" of how stupid they were to behave bravely for such an unworthy, disgusting cause as the US Army (which is simply a slightly more polite way of calling them fools, precisely what Epictetus said the likes of you always do) reject your entire view of the Armed Forces as a cowardly excuse for freeloading. They don't want or need you to "rescue" them from the awful "Armed Forces brainwashing" you are so sure is going on, thankyouverymuch.

Firstly, I wear my heart on my sleeve, with regards to opposing the war, and do not dissemble. How dare you.

Secondly, I never called them stupid. They have made a moral choice I do not agree with. People who chose to circumscise their children make a moral choice I do not agree with, calling them stupid would be untrue, and even if it were true, it would be irelavent.

Thirdly, I never presumed they are brainwashed. I do not fully understand the reasoning behind joining the military. I sat down with several recruiters in high school, and asked for reasons. I didn't get any I agreed with.

Fourthly, I don't pretend to know the "the Truth". I don't think anyone does. Our military is making a mess out of the world. I happen to be an atheist, and I don' think there's any hope for people who are killed by our military for an "afterlife". I don't have any comfortable illusions to use when I think about all the people who've been squeezed out, without having done anything wrong, by our military.

Fifthly, dismissing everything I have to say because I am not in the military, and am critical of it is hardly critical thinking. I could be completely, entirely wrong about this, and right about, say, my assertion that the WWII U.S. military was something to be proud of. Dismiss arguements if you like, dismissing people out of hand is rash.

Sixthly, what exactly is wrong with pity?

pity·ing·ly adv.

Synonyms: pity, compassion, commiseration, sympathy, condolence, empathy
These nouns signify kindly concern aroused by the misfortune, affliction, or suffering of another. Pity often implies a feeling of sorrow that inclines one to help or to show mercy: felt pity for the outcast. Compassion denotes deep awareness of the suffering of another and the wish to relieve it: “Compassion is not weakness, and concern for the unfortunate is not socialism” (Hubert H. Humphrey). Commiseration signifies the expression of pity or sorrow: expressed their commiseration over the failure of the experiment. Sympathy denotes the act of or capacity for sharing in the sorrows or troubles of another: “They had little sympathy to spare for their unfortunate enemies” (William Hickling Prescott). Condolence is a formal, conventional expression of pity, usually to relatives upon a death: extending condolences to the bereaved family. Empathy is an identification with and understanding of another's situation, feelings, and motives: Having changed schools several times as a child, I feel empathy for the transfer students.

They're paid little to do a difficult and dangerous job. I can respect their courage, admire their skills, and feel pity for their situation. Are you suggesting that feeling pity for a person is somehow wrong? Are you suggesting that I feel superior perhaps? I don't. My hands are clean, but that doesn't help the world. I can get my hands bloody, or I can do nothing. As I've said before, I don't like those choices. My response has been to go to school to be a school teacher, to try to help the world in a way that doesn't involve making choices about who should live and who should die, because I don't feel I have the moral superiority over others to make that sort of choice.

Now, the rest of your tirade is based on assumptions about my thoughts and feelings, and is an extended ad hominem.

 

[hammegk]

Sorry to repost, but here ya go, anyway ..

We know it's not really a "war on terror." Nor is it, at heart, a war against Islam, or even "radical Islam." The Muslim faith, whatever its merits for the believers, is a problematic business for the rest of us. There are many trouble spots around the world, but as a general rule, it's easy to make an educated guess at one of the participants: Muslims vs. Jews in "Palestine," Muslims vs. Hindus in Kashmir, Muslims vs. Christians in Africa, Muslims vs. Buddhists in Thailand, Muslims vs. Russians in the Caucasus, Muslims vs. backpacking tourists in Bali. Like the environmentalists, these guys think globally but act locally.

Yet while Islamism is the enemy, it's not what this thing's about. Radical Islam is an opportunistic infection, like AIDS: It's not the HIV that kills you, it's the pneumonia you get when your body's too weak to fight it off. .... They know they can never win on the battlefield, but they figure there's an excellent chance they can drag things out until Western civilization collapses in on itself and Islam inherits by default.

That's what the war's about: our lack of civilizational confidence. As a famous Arnold Toynbee quote puts it: "Civilizations die from suicide, not murder"--as can be seen throughout much of "the Western world" right now. The progressive agenda--lavish social welfare, abortion, secularism, multiculturalism--is collectively the real suicide bomb. Take multiculturalism. The great thing about multiculturalism is that it doesn't involve knowing anything about other cultures--the capital of Bhutan, the principal exports of Malawi, who cares? All it requires is feeling good about other cultures. It's fundamentally a fraud, and I would argue was subliminally accepted on that basis. Most adherents to the idea that all cultures are equal don't want to live in anything but an advanced Western society. Multiculturalism means your kid has to learn some wretched native dirge for the school holiday concert instead of getting to sing "Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer" or that your holistic masseuse uses techniques developed from Native American spirituality, but not that you or anyone you care about should have to live in an African or Native American society. It's a quintessential piece of progressive humbug.

from http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110007760

Poor imaginal ..no way to find moral superiority ...

 

[Orwell]

Oh boy, now Hammegk is posting here... Man, all the Neanderthals have congregated on this thread... Good luck, ImaginalDisc!

 

[ImaginalDisc]

Oh boy, now Hammegk is posting here... Man, all the Neanderthals have congregated on this thread... Good luck, ImaginalDisc!

Orwell, do me a favor, don't agree with me, ok?

Edit: To elaborate, Orwell, you're delivering a blanket insult to everyone who's disagreed with me, which demens everyone here, and then expressed solidarity with me. That's not tolerable.

 

[David Swidler]

Ouch!

 

[Skeptic]

On second thought, I-D, I apologize to you.

I have overgeneralized. I put in too strong words something that I strongly feel, but it wasn't intended as roughly as it came out. If the moderator wants to remove those posts, they can go ahead. To put it simply, now that I read over your position, my problem with understanding you was the the "patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel" problem.

When Dr. Johnson said that, he was not attacking patriots; he was only attacking fake patriots who are really scoundrels. The problem with your view is that I heard very similar views--views which are not in themselves bad--expressed very often by people who obviously were, simply, cowards and freeloaders, that I assumed you are the same. Just like you might tend to suspect people who claim to be patriots of being scoundrels even when they're not, I suspect people who claim to be pacifists of being cowardly freeloaders even when they're not.

It's not that I think that your views themselves are disgusting, they are not (though I still think you are wrong, which is another issue); it is that you are in disgusting company. Unlike them, however, you seem to know far more about the army and soldiers that they ever do, for example.

So, I apologize to you and rephrase my problem with your view.

The problem, as I see it, is that there are far more than the "two choices". you are abdicating your moral responsibility if, deciding that the US Army is "making a mess of the world", you therefore think pacifism is the answer.

You cannot really be a pacifist, in any meaningful sense, in a country that is defended by the strongest military in the world. This is for the same reason you cannot be a christian Martyr in a country that does not prosecute and kill Christians.

Sure, you might imagine that if you are ever in a situation you must use force you would decline to do so, just like I can imagine that if the USA decided to begin to prosecute Christians, I will convery to Christianity and willfully go to my death to gain the Martyr's crown of stars in heaven (had I believed in either Christianity or heaven, that is.) But this is at most a declaration of intention, and, at worse, a show, a claim that says in effect, "I am a really good person". If my sin is the sin of anger, the pacifists' is that of vanity.

There are other things to say about your view, if you are interested in serious criticism, but that's for starters. Note that this is criticism, disagreement, not attack.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

On second thought, I-D, I apologize to you.

I have overgeneralized. I put in too strong words something that I strongly feel, but it wasn't intended as roughly as it came out. If the moderator wants to remove those posts, they can go ahead. To put it simply, now that I read over your position, my problem with understanding you was the the "patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel" problem.

When Dr. Johnson said that, he was not attacking patriots; he was only attacking fake patriots who are really scoundrels. The problem with your view is that I heard very similar views--views which are not in themselves bad--expressed very often by people who obviously were, simply, cowards and freeloaders, that I assumed you are the same. Just like you might tend to suspect people who claim to be patriots of being scoundrels even when they're not, I suspect people who claim to be pacifists of being cowardly freeloaders even when they're not.

It's not that I think that your views themselves are disgusting, they are not (though I still think you are wrong, which is another issue); it is that you are in disgusting company. Unlike them, however, you seem to know far more about the army and soldiers that they ever do, for example.

So, I apologize to you and rephrase my problem with your view.

The problem, as I see it, is that there are far more than the "two choices". you are abdicating your moral responsibility if, deciding that the US Army is "making a mess of the world", you therefore think pacifism is the answer.

You cannot really be a pacifist, in any meaningful sense, in a country that is defended by the strongest military in the world. This is for the same reason you cannot be a christian Martyr in a country that does not prosecute and kill Christians.

Sure, you might imagine that if you are ever in a situation you must use force you would decline to do so, just like I can imagine that if the USA decided to begin to prosecute Christians, I will convery to Christianity and willfully go to my death to gain the Martyr's crown of stars in heaven (had I believed in either Christianity or heaven, that is.) But this is at most a declaration of intention, and, at worse, a show, a claim that says in effect, "I am a really good person". If my sin is the sin of anger, the pacifists' is that of vanity.

There are other things to say about your view, if you are interested in serious criticism, but that's for starters. Note that this is criticism, disagreement, not attack.

Thank you Skeptic, and you're right. It's quite difficult to reconcile pascisifism with living in a state which views a traditional concept of national defense as an important part.

The false dichotomoy of pure pascifism vrs. outright, gung-ho military partcipation isn't my construct, but a contruct many on both the left anf right would have us believe. Leftists denounce prominment Right figures as "chickenhawks", demeaning them for having little or no military service, and Right-Wingers paint war protesters as being for surrendering the nation over to terrorists. Neither generalization is true, or helpful to public debate. If I had a choice of service which didn't involve foreign wars, like the pre-Regan era National Gaurd, I might have a better option, but as it is, it sucks.