Terrible Editorials, Opinion Pieces and Letters to the Editor

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Terrible Editorials, Opinion Pieces and Letters to the Editor

goodog: Nov 3, 2007

quote:

Silly me, I decided to wade in late last night on the debate which was ironically raging on Twitter over whether Western powers should intervene in Syria.

It was ironically raging because one side of the debate is almost diametrically opposed to the other having an opinion on the matter.

And while I won�t bore you with my notions of moral imperatives, I figured this would be a good time to settle the score over some oft-repeated tropes designed to shut down or stifle the debate.

There are a lot of diverging opinions over the use of chemical weapons, many mockingly so, though the point remains: Why when Assad used tanks, bombs, bullets and other weaponry was it not prudent to intervene, but when he uses chemicals to cause death, it changes the ball game? Obviously this isn�t a numbers game anymore, but rather, something regarding the means, and the morality and danger surrounding that.

I think I, like few others, was swayed by this seemingly counterintuitive logic. Up until last week, you could have heard me in London cabs chatting to drivers about how it is too late for us to intervene. But the use of chemicals swayed me, and I though I cannot fully explain it, something about gassing people and causing prolonged and painful deaths rather than simply executing them marks a fundamental change in the nature of the civil war, and demands intervention.

But I digress into what I promised you I would not. My apologies. Back to the Twitter debates from last night.

It seems evident to me, as I�m sure many of my fellow �chickenhawks� have experienced, that whenever one advocates intervention, or indeed war, one is told to �join up and fight yourself then� or to �stop being an armchair general�. Something of that nature. You know what I�m talking about.

But this logic (it isn�t really logic, it�s a poor attempt at sophistry at best) is designed to end the debate, or to invoke the populism that hopefully still runs deep with regards to our armed forces. This of course, occurs at the very same time that hypocritical non-interventionists bemoan the lack of public support for British or American foreign involvements.

So here I am, a member of the public, supporting our actions abroad. But suddenly when I do, I�m a chickenhawk. Right�

Let�s drill down a little further. Apparently, encouraging me, a bespectacled, unfit, five-foot-eight writer to join the army is a solution to me having an opinion. So it surely must follow, anyway. But given that the army is not a democracy, what use would it do me, having my opinions, being in the army? If I�m so keen for our country to intervene, they say, I should join up and fight. But the point is they don�t want us to go to war � so I wouldn�t end up fighting by their standards anyway, right? Hmm.

Often added to this is another attempt at populism. Something along the lines of, �How would you explain to a soldiers� mother or father, husband, wife or child, that they died for wars abroad?�

Well, it might go something like this: �Your son/husband/father/daughter/wife/mother was an incredibly brave person who joined the armed forces knowing full well the implications of doing so. They took upon themselves the duties which the armed forces are known to have to shoulder on behalf of our country. That is, becoming involved in defensive or offensive wars, and indeed in foreign interventions. They will never be forgotten, and the lives that he or she gave up his or her own to save will stand as a testament to his or her bravery and responsibility.�

You know� almost as if saying that people who join the armed forces know that at some point they will likely have to put their lives on the line. By implying that they don�t, by invoking the anti-interventionist argument as above, armchair non-interventionists (see what I did there?) insult both those who have joined up to serve, and indeed their families. They insult their intelligence, their bravery, and their sense of public duty, not just to this country, but to humanity.

And that�s what it comes down to. In an effectively shrinking world, our armed forces are no longer single-purpose vehicles for defending our nation. Instead, we as a stronger country than most shoulder a global burden to prevent massacres, suffering and protect our vital interests abroad (and before you start, nowhere did I claim �democracy promotion� or �nation building� was a part of that).

If any of those opinions makes me a �chicken hawk�, then guess what? Cock-a-doodle-doo

Its one of the most condescending things I've ever read.

# ¿ Nov 13, 2013 06:05

goodog: Nov 3, 2007

The one good thing that Kassam did was drive his former boss Robin Sheperd totally insane.

# ¿ Nov 14, 2013 04:03

goodog: Nov 3, 2007

A guy writing a listicle on some Facebook Share factory is telling people to raise their literary standards. Buddy if people actually did that you'd be out of a job.

# ¿ Feb 23, 2014 04:56

goodog: Nov 3, 2007

Jay-Z entire discography is a love letter to the capitalist dream, he's richer than Mitt Romney and he defended the 1% during the Occupy protests while profiting off the movement. If he wasn't associated with the president and vague Democrat politics, Republicans would try and co-opt him as One Of The Good Ones at every opportunity.

# ¿ Aug 29, 2014 10:31

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Terrible Editorials, Opinion Pieces and Letters to the Editor

Popular Thug Drink posted:

quote: