Even Lowlier Than a Chicken Hawk
Everyone has names for those people who sit at their keyboards and push for war and aggression. “We need to get in there and fight and keep on fighting.” “We can't back down.” “We have to stay there until the job is done, no matter how long it takes.” They say “we,” but “we” always means somebody else.
These people are known by lots of familiar names: chickenhawks, keyboard warriors, the Chairborne Division. But there's another group of people that’s even more shameless and despicable.
In January 2006 Jill Carroll — a reporter from the Christian Science Monitor — was captured in Iraq and taken hostage. After she was released, some rightwing bloggers and pundits went Medieval on her. She cooperated with the enemy. She was a traitor. She was a wuss; she couldn’t take it.
And now that these British sailors have been released by the Iranian government, they too are being crucified. WTF??? Most of these keyboard badasses would probably turn to jelly and start quaking and blubbering incoherently if somebody even gave them a menacing look in a bar or on the street. But get this same pusbag behind a computer console and he turns into Rocky Balboa. Un-fuckin’-believable.
I don’t know of any names for these people. Certainly nothing that would be printable in a family blog such as this one.
Labels: British sailors, Iran, Jill Carroll
posted by Tom Harper @ 12:33 AM
20 Comments:
I heard on one of the news channels (CNN?) that U.S. forces in these situations are expected to fight back rather than be taken hostage/ prisoner. Maybe the U.K. soldiers have to ask permission first to resist?
I don't know, but whatever the applicable rules were for the U.K. soldiers, they didn't deserve the vicious attacks they've received since they got back home. They're damned lucky to be alive.
Candace: I'm sure American forces are expected to fight back instead of surrendering. Same with the British, probably. But these sailors got released after a few days instead of 444 days like the American embassy personnel in Iran in 1979.
And the Brits were treated a lot better than Iranian captives would be if the Iranian navy was patrolling off the American coast. For now, it seems like being a POW in Iran is preferable to being a captive of the Americans or British. Funny how things have gotten switched around.
What a retard that guy is on msn.com to heap criticism on the British soldiers like that! Some news outlets are reporting that there was psychological torture going on, which wouldn't surprise me. Oh, but I forgot: the chickenhawks wouldn't dare be afraid of those Iranians, they'd just stand right up and...get their heads blown off I'm sure.
I'm throwing a bullshit flag here. This does NOT sound like "supporting the troops" to me.
Mile High Pixie: Yeah, that's about as low as someone can go -- condemning somebody who's just been released by a foreign captor. I'm sure these armchair tough guys would've had backbones of steel if they were in the same predicament.
One must ask, how was there so many POW's during Vietnam, if our military dont back down?
We must understand that we have the Republicans, that for years have fooled the service members, that he cares for them.
What he cares for is his own butt and that of his family.
It's crazy to see these young men today, so into this war and not realizing, that the Republicans are doing nothing as in past wars and conflicts, to see about these men when they come back home.
We as blogger's must speak out against this, everytime we are confronted with this by chickenhawks and even our on volunteer service members.
The service member has no idea as to what will happen to them, if they are without eye, leg or arm when they get back here.
Returning back here in those conditions inables them to start seeing that this conservative war is a bunch of you know what.
The Republican party that they fervently thought was for them and their bravery, will be shown to be only a mask that protected their sons and daughters.
The sons and daughters, who dont serve because of this bunch of young men, who dont yet have a clue as to what is being asked of them in the name of the conservatives own butt and that of their children.
Talk is cheap and the question now to the chickenhawks is; you can talk the talk, but can you walk the walk?
Just remember not one soul in the President's or the Vice President's family are in Iraq to be a good patriot.
Let's Talk: You're right, our military personnel have no idea what to expect when they come home. When someone comes home injured or disabled, or after being released from captivity -- the general public has no idea what this person went through.
To pass judgment and tell these people what they should've done instead -- it's just inconceivable. It's the ultimate example of talking the talk but not walking the walk.
In reference to what candance said, about U.S. forces in these situations are expected to fight back rather than be taken hostage/ prisoner.
During my time in the military, there comes a time when you look at the young people you have in front of you...your only thought is to get these folks back home safe and sound.
Like they say, war is for the young, but we must remember that most of the young dont think the way most older people do.
They look at Article II and read it much differently than you or I would... there's a section that read: When there is no chance for meaningful resistance, evasion is impossible, and further fighting would lead to their death with no significant loss to the enemy, members of Armed Forces should view themselves as "captured" against their will versus a circumstance that is seen as voluntarily "surrendering." They must remember that the capture was dictated by the futility of the situation and overwhelming enemy strengths. In this case, capture is not dishonorable.
So we dont know what went on during the capture of the Brits and we can not say what might have happen if Americans were in this mix.
I think we should all be glad the British sailors were released without any violent response from Britain or the U.S., be thankful, and just leave it at that. How someone can be such a 'tard as to try and make right-wing talking points out of something that actually went pretty successfully, all things considered, is beyond me.
Let's Talk: From I've read of the whole British hostage thing, the British sailors shouldn't have gotten themselves into that predicament. They should/could have changed course and escaped when they saw the Iranian Navy approach their ship; and/or they should have had better armaments to "deter" the Iranian ship from approaching and boarding. I don't know whether that was the sailors' fault or the fault of whoever gave them their orders and/or sent them into Iranian/Iraqi waters without proper equipment.
But beyond that, to jump all over them for being "cowards" or "traitors" after they were released: that's just the lowest thing imaginable.
Snave: You've got it. To try and make talking points at the expense of someone who's been captured and then released by an enemy: words like 'tard and sleazy don't even describe it. It's lower than low.
snave, I'm very happy that the Brit in command got his people safely back home without a lost.
We cant say what went on, but I will just say that they are all back home safely.
I dont understand why some conservative's seem to find this an insult.
I would hate to be under some of those folks during a time of challenge.
True, we don't know what went on out there. I suspect that everyone on that ship was scared shitless of starting an "international incident," if not WWIII.
Whatever happened, the people who've blasted these soldiers are despicable.
Christiane Amanpour reported that, in her (considerable) opinion, the reason the Brits were released was because the Ayatollah would have ordered Ahmadenijad to do so. The Ayatollah may have realized that their president had backed themselves into a corner. It was also a brilliant piece of PR (in the Islamic world) to release them, in civilian clothes, as a "gift" on a Christian holiday.
Of course, we also have to wonder what kind of back-door deals were made prior to release.
I shudder to think what would have happened if the soldiers had been ours.
And on that note, I notice that the body count (U.S.) has risen by six since I checked last night. Goddamnit.
These assholes love to talk the talk, but as soon as you tell them that they should enlist, they shut up real quick.
There is a old video out there of John McCain saying that he did and said whatever he could in order to SURVIVE when he was a POW. I have to find it and post it.
I've met British Marines during operations and I'm here to say, those guys were good and did some of the things that our Marines were only asked to do out there.
So what ever happen at sea, had to be something that was out of their control... no way out except to die or give up.
Candace: That's true, those sailors probably had to walk a tightrope between defending themselves and setting off an international incident. And yeah, I think American military personnel would have been treated much worse than the Brits were.
Lizzy: That sounds like a great video. I hope it gets some publicity. McCain would know. The military has clear instructions on what to do if you're captured, but if you actually become a captive, reality takes over. You'll do whatever you need to do to survive.
Family Blog. Thats a good one. :)
They are simply hypocrites. They are the type of guy in the horror flick who wears nice clothes, hits on the hot chick shamelessly, acts all tough, and then falls to pieces as soon as they are faced with the psycho killer (usually peeing in their pants before the ax falls).
Let's Talk: That makes perfect sense. I'm sure British Marines have all the toughness and dedication that's needed, and then some. Like you said, whatever happened out there probably went beyond their control. Only they know. There's no purpose in having Monday morning quarterbacks jumping all over them with "you wimp, why didn't you _________"
Prague Twin: I thought "family blog" would get a few laughs. That's a perfect description of these armchair tough guys.
After Vietnam our Military changed it's policy. They realized that no one can be expected to hold up under torture. Either direct or indirect (ie long confinement). Maybe John McCain would have something to say to that.
In Spite of that the old adage that you are never supposed to bend nor talk and always fight back seems to still fly around the public and especially the right wing.
Ask youself - Could I take it?
Erik
Erik: You're right. Sure, anyone can point to a certain section of the UCMJ and say "this is what a soldier is required to do if he's captured." But if somebody gets captured, reality (and survival) sets in.
These armchair tough guys need to ask themselves what they'd do if they were in that same position, instead of pointing fingers.
Good call, I'm stealing the 'chair borne division' description- loving that one.
I already had a venting session with a buddy a couple of days ago about the sailors and RMCs, but I'm over that now - true unless you were there you'll never know the pressure.
Damien: Actually it was Jolly Roger (he comments here sometimes) who made up "chairborne division."
You're right, if someone has never been in that situation, they have no idea what it's like or what they'd do if it happened to them.
Post a Comment
<< Home