Well; as many of you here on Kos know I have had a long running love affair with sweet William.
After all what is not to adore with respect to his prep school smarm and total disregard for what he percieves to be the 'lower' orders. We do come from similar backgrounds, he went to the Collegiate School in NY and I to St Georges School in Edinburgh.
One would expect it to be a match made in heaven [intellectually speaking..sexu...oh....ick] that we would have plenty of things in common?
Then why do I find him to be a snotty little git with all the moral fortitude of a slug?
So what has the pandering prep-school pipsqueak come up with to miff me now?
Follow me over the hop, and don't pinch [that is a whole other story that earned a slap from this diarist and set the mood for my piece.]
I always know when purient little William is going to say about DADT and he is going to be for it, however in his pathetic little screed one phrase lept out
And even if one understood this change to be rectifying an injustice, the fact is it’s an injustice that affects perhaps a few thousand people in a nation of 300 million.
Voilà; or Bingo if one prefers.
That little knee jerk of intellectual entitlement perfectly states the 'academic' rights view to the military, and can be applied to all their historic warmongering interventionist policies.
affects perhaps a few thousand people
So you can also use the same logic when applying this to the standing professional army.
Compared to 300 million those in the military front-lines are a mere bagatelle.
Hence: They are of no real consequence to society at large.
Dear William you do no what the self proclaimed elite used to call the 'troops'?
Cannon fodder is an informal term for military personnel who are regarded or treated as expendable in the face of enemy fire. The term is generally used in situations where soldiers are forced to deliberately fight against hopeless odds (with the foreknowledge that they will suffer extremely high casualties) in an effort to achieve a strategic goal. An example is the trench warfare in World War I. The term may also be used (somewhat pejoratively) to differentiate infantry from other forces (such as artillery, air force or the navy), or to distinguish expendable low-grade or inexperienced soldiers from supposedly more valuable veterans.
Indeed in the past they often thought of wars as a method to weed societies trash out whilst earning glory by association themselves.
So you see the 'elite rights' total disregard for those that believe in serving their country in the most honourable way they can imagine by offering to lay their lives down in its defence?
This explains the whole posturing and rhetoric from the past Bush Administration and those on the right; the vast majority of whom would never dream of serving anyone but their own agenda.
Don't believe that pustulent William is alone in this little world of self percieved entitlement one could include all the signatories of PNAC and pretty much everyone in the Heritage Foundation and other similar groups of moral turpitude.
So sear William as usual I have been unerringly polite in my analysis of your monotonous self gratification so I'll leave you with this thought:
Poor William you were born in the wrong era and would have been better of at Rugby School in 1830's you would have made a perfect Flashman "a scoundrel, a liar, a cheat, a thief, a coward—and oh yes, a toady." except you would have lacked his finer attributes; like enlisting in the first place.