Thanks, man.

Yeah, it's easy to mock "Keyboard Kommandos" and "Yellow Elephants" for quick laughs.

But the most such ad hominem attacks can prove is that the people in question are, like most people, reluctant to give up their civillian lives and get shot at, no matter how worthy the cause. (And maybe I'm wrong, but I imagine that if war supporters were actually drafted into service, most would honorably answer the call. After all, they couldn't easily claim conscientious objector status.)

Importantly, "Kommandos"-style mockery says nothing about whether the war is a good idea.

For example, if someone avoided serving in WWII, but still supported America's entry into the war, we might call that person a hypocrite. But his actions would have no bearing on whether WWII was worth fighting.

But why does someone have to fight in a war in order to be entitled to support it, anyway? In what other area of life does this rule apply?

I work in a tall building. If it catches on fire and I am trapped inside, I expect firemen to rush inside and risk their lives trying to save me. Yet I have no plans to become a fireman myself, so as to "earn the right" to work in a tall building.

I also expect cops to risk their lives stopping violent criminals, but I am not going to put in a few years on the force so I can feel entitled to walk down a city street in a bad neighborhood.

Why is it considered hypocritical for ordinary people to support our troops at war, but not our firefighters or our policemen?

First of all, we should thank good ole GB for pointing out that Republicans are hypocrites.

Actually, the whole point of the Kommandos and Yellow Elephant parodies is that Republicans know in their dishonest, shriveled little hearts the war isn't a good idea. They are unwilling to serve (because the war is a losing battle against an unknown with no tangibles and no goals) but with no guilt send others to die, ergo, hypocrites. By your own logic.

If your life isn't worth this cause, why is someone else's?

GB,

if war supporters were actually drafted into service, most would honorably answer the call

File under: if frogs had wings, they wouldn't bump their butts so much. Luckily for the war supporters, they don't have to consider that possibility. You and I both know that had a universal draft been in place in 2003, support for the war would have been far, far lower.

Look, you'll find that I don't spend any time mocking you or, say, Ben A. at the bandarlog. Why? Because I didn't have to listen to tendentious screeching from you guys about how liberals are traitors and active supporters of Islamic fundamentalism or how we just don't understand that "freedom isn't free" or a hundred other ridiculous, meaningless cliches.

Then, on the other hand, there's the clown brigade at Powerline and Hugh Hewitt and the Nutty Professor and the Little League fascists at LGF, who pound their chests and get all popeyed condemning my deep, personal love for Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden. There's Bill O'Reilly calling for liberals to be arrested and Karl Rove saying that in our hearts, we want just American soldiers to get killed. And you know what? Fuck them. I'm not interested in civil discourse or fairness with any of them. I'll engage them on the level of discourse they obviously prefer.

whether WWII was worth fighting

I missed the part where Saddam bombed our naval bases, but then I can't read every news story out there, so I suppose it's possible. Also, there was a draft.

says nothing about whether the war is a good idea

We've expended plenty of words all along explaining why the war isn't a good idea. So far, they have all proven correct and I don't see the need to restate them in every blog post. They are now manifestly self-evident.

Why is it considered hypocritical for ordinary people to support our troops at war, but not our firefighters or our policemen?

Because preemptive war (that turned out to be preempting precisely nothing) that results in the deaths of tens of thousands of innocent civilians and levels entire cities and destroys a nation's economy and infrastructure and utterly wrecks our moral standing with the rest of the world is just a little bit different from putting out fires and arresting burglars. As I recall, this is World War IV, the most important American endeavor since defeating the Nazis, a project worth any amount of blood and treasure. Well, we're out of troops and the end is nowhere in sight. If you still support it, then now's the time to actually support it.

"Support the troops" doesn't mean anything when the right wing wields it truncheon-like, except "don't you dare question George W. Bush." Sterling, for example, has a brother that just returned from a tour in Iraq. You think he doesn't support the troops? I have friends, neighbors, and family in the military. You think I don't support the troops?

See, you are an honest, honorable conservative - and I know plenty of people who fit that description - but you are simply not representative of the leaders of the GOP here stateside, nor of the diapered keyboard bangers in the WingNet.

On an unrelated note, congrats on your Instalanche, GB!

I agree with the Apostropher. If you can't honestly say that you're willing to go to war to support this cause, if you've considered the idea and for a second could see what a fucking mess you'd become if you did and find that you don't care that much about another person's freedom, then how do you think our enlisted men feel?

People who put a lot of trust in our government's good sense, their regard for our soldiers' welfare, and that their tours of duty would actually last as long as they tell you at the recruiter's office. What's it like to be fighting a fucking war in under those conditions? If liberals ask republicans why they're not going to war themselves it should be to put you in our soldiers' shoes, to ask you if it's cool to make that fucking mess out some other young man's life.

I'm sure if you were a decent person and you had a means to save a person from a burning building or stop someone from being raped you'd do it. Likewise if American's were being invaded by Canadian most hearty Conservatives would be lining the block to serve. The point is that this war just isn't important enough to put everything on the line for. Not for you. Not for anyone.

Warblogger enlists in Army, wins argument

Um, NO.

But heh, points for wit!