Comments on: Chicken Hawks Redux: 101st Fighting Keyboarders http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/101st_fighting_keyboarders/ Online Journal of Politics and Foreign Affairs Thu, 26 Nov 2009 22:53:54 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5 hourly 1 By: Hal http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/101st_fighting_keyboarders/comment-page-1/#comment-48534 Hal Sat, 11 Jun 2005 02:09:24 +0000 http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/?p=10907#comment-48534 <snicker> Are you guys really this dense? <snicker> Are you guys really this dense?

]]> By: Christopher Cross http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/101st_fighting_keyboarders/comment-page-1/#comment-48526 Christopher Cross Fri, 10 Jun 2005 22:50:38 +0000 http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/?p=10907#comment-48526 The problem with the left's "chickenhawk" approach to invalidating the arguments of those that haven't served is that it is perpetually narrowing the field of "qualified" veterans. Not a veteran but support the war? Chickenhawk--so you don't count Veteran? Well, you didn't serve IN Iraq/Afghanistan--so you don't count Iraq/Afgh veteran? Well, you didn't see COMBAT--so you don't count Seen Combat vet who supports the war? Well, you weren't INFANTRY. Infantry combat vet? Brainwashed jackbooted Bushhitler automaton. It kind of loses steam towards the end... The problem with the left's "chickenhawk" approach to invalidating the arguments of those that haven't served is that it is perpetually narrowing the field of "qualified" veterans.

Not a veteran but support the war? Chickenhawk--so you don't count

Veteran? Well, you didn't serve IN Iraq/Afghanistan--so you don't count

Iraq/Afgh veteran? Well, you didn't see COMBAT--so you don't count

Seen Combat vet who supports the war? Well, you weren't INFANTRY.

Infantry combat vet? Brainwashed jackbooted Bushhitler automaton.

It kind of loses steam towards the end...

]]>