Captain's Quarters -

The chickenhawk argument is not meant for people who support troops, but who support a specific war as vital or just yet either A) Don't join the fight themselves or B) Don't encourage family members to do so.

I like beer. Does that mean I have to be a brewer.

Good.

Tom Shipley

What if you support the war effort but are beyond the age of serving in the armed forces? Can the war only be supported by people ages 18 - 30?

Tom, I believe that a specific beer is vital. Namely, Paulaner Hefeweisen. However, I will not become a brewer myself, and I will never encourage my family members to brew beer.

So does that make NoDonkey and me ChickenDrunks?

Tom Shipley wrote:
The chickenhawk argument is not meant for people who support troops, but who support a specific war as vital or just yet either A) Don't join the fight themselves or B) Don't encourage family members to do so.
Yeah, but its been the dems arguing that Iraq is a diversion from the REAL war on terror. Why aren't the dems and liberals joining the military to fight THAT war? Wouldn't that make them all chicken hawks?
Similarly those who say we should be searching for Osama (even though of course we have been) are acting rather chicken hawkishly if they themselves are not leading the searach in afghanistan/Pakistan.

Tom Shipley is of course right. The only people who get to voice an opinio on the war are those fighting it. Do they also get to decide how to fight it?

Tom W 1 Tom S 0

Liberals don't call people chickenhawk just to shut them up. Liberals believe in free speech, especially for terrorists.

Hey, Tom

What about the war in Afghanistan that the Democrats supposedly support as a "just" war and whatnot? I don't see them signing up in droves to fight that good fight.

I vaguely recall a period where people when being fired from their jobs for questioning the wisdom of the war, and various radio shows hosts screaming at their callers as recently as 2005. No you don't have to become a fireman to support the fire department, but the firemen have the good sense to not threaten the townfolk. If they started doing that.... well I'm too lazy to come up with another analogy that wouldn't be really offensive.

Tom Shipley,

Thanks for validating the post.

Chickenhawk is simply a label tossed around when one side doesn't have a logical basis to support their side and is an act of desperation.

I have been called a chickenhawk so many times on the net which is ridiculous considering serving my 25 years in service and I don't see a lot of recruiting for people in the 60 year age bracket.

Tom Shipley,

This blog post was perfect. Unless one is an expert at something, on can not criticize it. Love it.

I guess I can love meat since I spend all day shoveling Sh.#

Tom - your point is spot-on correct. Unless the lefties run and join the military in droves to fight the war in Afghanistan, or wherever the war on terror is today - they too are chickenhawks. They tell us to fight the real war. Well, join up and go fight it since the right is fighting the wrong war.

What do you get when you cross a hypocrite with a chickenhawk? Keith Olbermann?

These are the same libs who tell us how evil, rotten and goulish the military is and, in the same sentence,call people chickenhawks for not joining the orginazation they declare evil, immoral, rotten, goulish and corrupt.

Tom Shipley: The chickenhawk argument is not meant for people who support troops, but who support a specific war as vital or just yet either A) Don't join the fight themselves or B) Don't encourage family members to do so.

Ah. Got it. So every member of Congress who voted for the AUMF should either A) resign his seat to volunteer for the Armed Forces or B) "encourage" their children to do so. Otherwise, they're "chickenhawks".

Glad you cleared that up for me.

But wait a sec... What if I support a war as "vital and just" but am too old to enlist or I have no children to encourage to enlist (which I would do, by the way)? Am I still a chickenhawk?

What about people like No Donkey or swabjockey who support a war as "vital and just" and ARE in the military? Are they chickenhawks? Or people like me or jerry (IIRC) who DID serve at one time but aren't serving now and support a war as "vital and just"? How about women? Do they have to enlist, too?

What if people who support a war as "vital and just" ARE enlisted but haven't been deployed, or ARE enlisted AND deployed but haven't seen combat? What if they ARE enlisted, HAVE seen combat, but haven't been wounded? I ask because a certain public official is routinely derided as a "chickenhawk" despite the fact that he did serve in the National Guard, albeit many years ago.

In order to cut to the chase, how about this, Tom: you can call anybody who supports a war with which you personally disagree a "chickenhawk", and we will call you a "Benedict Arnold", a "Judas", a "quisling", etc? Fair exchange? Even if it isn't, it's gonna happen, anyway.

I have to give you credit. This one almost worked and, for a moment, had me questioning the premise. It took some time to work through this argument to find the "apples vs. oranges" component of it which, in retrospect, was obvious from the beginning.

Let's start with the more silly stuff in the comments section first. You like beer. Does this mean you should not be allowed to drink beer unless you brew it? (I brew my own as a hobby, by the way, but I still have a nice pint of Guinness now and again.) You have a CHOICE. There are people out there brewing beer, and you can choose to drink it or not drink it. The only judgement that will be levied will be determined by if enough people choose to drink that brand of beer. If they do, the company prospers. If they don't, it goes out of business.

On the more (if not most) pressing and compelling argument here.

"I support the police, so to be consistent I had to join the LAPD."

This disingenuous argument implies that there is some national dispute as to whether or not we, as a society, should be protected from crime. Is there some large (and I don't mean a handfull of LSD addled anarchists) segement of society which feels that criminals in our country should roam about without being persued, prosecuted, convicted and punished? Does the Chief Executive have to sit at the beginning of each four year term and decide whether or not we should send our police out to battle drug dealers, rapists, murderers, arsonists? If that was the case, and we had some vast majority of people who did not want to have police protection, but the president DID want it, then yes... I would expect you to get out there and join the police force. If not... then shut up.

"I also support the fire department, so I became a firefighter, too."

So, is there a large component of Americans opposed to putting out fires? Do we have candidates in contention who are "pro-housefire"?

The car, skyscraper and vegetable arguments are as specious as the beer one. Those are economic enterprises that will rise or fall on their own popularity or disapproval. And nobody dies in the process.

And there's the crux of it, isn't it? None of this even speaks to the vast difference between trying to argue about whether or not you should have a hamburger or not and being sent off as part of a commitment you made to your contry to put your life on the line (and possibly lose it) in a foreign land for a policy you may or may not agree with.

I made that commitment. I put my ass on the line, though that was a time long ago and far away before we ever heard of Al Qeda.

You can argue against Budweiser without going to work brewing Coors. Aside from "voting with your wallet" as to the relative value of the product and the long term success of the manufacturer, you have no impact on it. Voting for, and more to the point, writing and campaigning for a war you are not willing to fight is a far, far cry from that. And to compare things like the universally acknowledged need for police protection or the silly rationale of whether or not you eat beef to the seriousness of pushing for a war between nations and sending our armed forces off to die in foreign lands (while you, yourself, are "too busy" to do so) is more disprespectful of the troops than much else I've read of here.

I'm not a big fan of the entire "chickenhawk" argument because I think all people should be given their opinions on matters of national policy, but the joke made of it in conversations like this, as if all these things were the same, is revolting. And it's disappointing to see the Captain highlight it in this manner.

You may comfort yourself with the oh too common meme in Right wing blogs of saying "the long since discredited chickenhawk argument" or whatever. Perhaps it makes you sleep better at night. But the fact remains.. none of these examples compare to your pushing for wars you are not willing to fight and sending off people to die, even if it's "only" 66 of our soldiers, as it was in this "best month in a long time" we just had. 66 dead Americans is still one hell of a lot, and it wasn't you. You should be collectively ashamed to sit around and snicker like this over such a serious subject.

I was able to get 4 deferments because of my bad knee, yet I love to fan the flames of war. Good to hear that I'm not a chickenhawk.

I thought a chicken hawk was someone who mysteriously avoided military service under the draft during a time of war?

Tom Shipley,
I felt it was vital that my children went to school. Should I have been a teacher? Or a janitor?

Jazz,
"This disingenuous argument implies that there is some national dispute as to whether or not we, as a society, should be protected from crime. "
Nice try. But since there are constant discussions, lawsuits, debates on how best to enforce the laws, you will need to be a police officer to be able to voice an opinion.

Same thing applies to the BOrder Patrol. I am sure you have an opinion one way or the other on illegal immigration. Either way, you need to join the Border Patrol to support your view on it.

Tom Shipley, after college, instead of joining the military I worked with mentally retarded/emotionally disturbed kids. Does that mean I can only advocate on how we as a society should handle them? Are you ex-military? If not, you shouldn't be advocating either way on how the military gets used.

Funny, but I thought we lived in a democracy where everyone gets to voice their opinion on every issue.

My response to the chickenhawk "argument" is just to say fine, then based on that logic only people who are serving or have served in the Armed Forces can have ANY "legitimate" opinion on ANY War in deciding on whether we lose or win.

Those who have not served have no valid voice at being against any war and wanting to lose if they use the chickenhawk "logic".

Let's see now, if you don't encourage family memebers to join and fight then you don't have a vaild opinion on Iraq, however, if you actively discourage people from joining the miltary, then you do have a vaild opinion on Iraq?

The most logical conclusion from the chickenhawk arguement is that only people currently serving in the Armed Forces are eligible to vote on the Iraq war. Wonder how that would turn out...

I think that some of you have forgotten:

a chickenhawk isn't someone who supports the military, or has an opinion about the military or how we use it. A chickenhawk is someone who thinks their pro-war attitude makes them tough, and others' anti-war attitudes make them weak. And I have to tell ya; I see a lot of that around here.

It's an extension of the 'home team' phenomena, but also tied into several other factors, including the blue-collar fraternal nature of the military and compensating for a certain amount of personal insecurity.

Tom Shipley,

I'm a veteran. I served in the Army from 1985-1988. I think the war in Iraq is not only just, it is necessary. Since I have served in the past but am not serving now, does that mean I'm only half of a chickenhawk?

Also, I am not a teacher yet I have kids in High School. Since I am not a teacher, does that mean I have no right to make decisions as to my kids education?

Ed, I've been away for a few weeks. It's good to be back but I see I have a lot of catching up to do. Man, you really work hard on your blog. Keep up the good work.

I'm a bit confused by that, too. I didn't encourage my son to join the military nor any other members of my family. By that definition, I would get labeled with the chickenhawk nom de plume before anyone knew the rest of the story because I don't often talk about it.

I didn't encourage my son to join the military. I believed the choice was his and once he made it, I supported him all the way through 3 tours in Iraq. I support all the other troops, too. It saddens and angers me the way they are maligned.

While a military wife, I volunteered in such places as the Army Community Services and the American Red Cross. I also kept a community newspaper going for six months during a post closure and filled in as a substitute teacher.

So, where does that place me? My son's no longer in the Army so I'm not a Blue Star Mom nor a Gold Star because he came back alive. And I still support the troops.

So?

Boy, all it takes is one troll to whine and the thread goes ballistic. Actually, I thought the argument was funny, but no one's laughing. Lighten up people!

It could be worse-- Carol Herman could be taking up every other comment slot.

If I have to join up to support the troops or support the war....do homosexual/lesbian rights supporters have to find themselves a same-sex spouse?

Is there some large (and I don't mean a handfull of LSD addled anarchists) segement of society which feels that criminals in our country should roam about without being persued, prosecuted, convicted and punished?

Yes. They call themselves "liberals".

Unfortunately for Jazz, he not only didn't "work through this argument to find the 'apples vs. oranges'", he happened to throw in some apricots too. Music may be Jazz's strong point, but logic certainly isn't. To wit:

"I support the police, so to be consistent I had to join the LAPD."...This disingenuous argument implies that there is some national dispute as to whether or not we, as a society, should be protected from crime.

The "chickenhawk conundrum" does NOT assume that there must be a group of people who disagree with the chickenhawks. This Jazz-hoped-for-requirement is totally irrelevant to the logic problem. The logic problem simply states that if one supports action W (war), then one MUST either personally engage in W or encourage family to engage in W.

Conclusion: The Tom W analysis is correct. Jazz blows bad logic.

Ok, now I's really confused.

1.) I volunteered for the Army in 1968 (at the height of the Viet Nam war), but wasn't accepted because of a health issue.

2.) I did not encourage my one son to join the military, but he volunteered for the Marine Corps. Today he's deployed in Kuwait. Not in combat.

Am I a chickenhawk?

Is my son a chickenhawk?

Or are idiots like Tom Shipley pocket fascists trying to stifle any argument?

Cyclo: "A chickenhawk is someone who thinks their pro-war attitude makes them tough, and others' anti-war attitudes make them weak. And I have to tell ya; I see a lot of that around here."

One can be brave without being tough, and one can be tough and unpatriotic at the same time as well. I think you mistake expressions of commitment to an important national undertaking with playground toughness. I also think that is done purposefully on your part.

So, define chickenhawk any way you want, the use of the term is meant as an attack on the person not the argument. Ad hominem is still ad hominem.

The essence of the matter for Americans is that we are free including the freedom to express our opinions on anything, but especially that which affects our life or that of our family, friends and fellow Americans. Turning Iraq over to Al Qaeda, et al, would have serious detrimental effects on my nation and my people. I have a right to freely talk about it. That is part of how America works.

Obviously the 'chickenhawk' argument used by your and other anti-war types has had far less success than even Bush's initial Iraq campaign. And infinitely less merit.

If you don't like it - talk about it. But don't try some chickensh*t way of shutting down discussion just because you can't stand up to the other guy's the argument.

Jazz,

It is quite clear that you are not now, nor have you ever been, in the military. I could be wrong, of course, but if you were you certainly didn't belong.

And all that's fine with me. Some choose to serve, some don't. Some have no other good options for a future, some want to do it, some have better things to do. Wherever you are on that spectrum, I hope you live long and prosper.

Let's get right to it. To you, there are no good wars. And you're right. But it doesn't end there. There are things worth fighting and killing and dying for. I know you don't understand that the way I and others do. It's not important to us that you do.

There really are monsters in the world. All through history men have sought to rule by force of arms. Sometimes they have succeeded, but only temporarily. In nearly every case of sucessful meglomania, good men, who had no longing or desire to fight and kill for it's own sake, stood up along side each other and ended the oppression against them through force of arms. When they were victorious they went back to their lives, changed certainly, as free men. They put down their arms and became citizens.

It is good that men like this still exist, ready to defend their lives, property, and way of life. And I am quite proud of everyone of them. And was/am one of them. 6 year Navy, submarine qualified, Trident I Missile Technician. (for those that know what it means: "Now it's Miller Time!")

The fact you and I exist and are able to converse freely is the result of someone's decision to make war.

Nobody likes war. I never met anyone in the military who was disappointed they didn't get to fight and kill somebody else. I spent 6 years in the Navy and not 1 time did I do what I was trained to do. That fact that I could do my job was enough to persuade others to re-think their objectives. They call it strategic deterrence. We called it "scaring the shit out of everybody else".

I've said this phrase before in real life in certain circumstances, and it's still very valid:

"The talkin's done........."

DrDean:

I wouldn't dream of keeping you or anyone else from supporting whatever you wish. I ascribe no particular moral relevance to your choice to support the war, but others seem to ascribe a moral or ethical relevance to those who have chosen to oppose the war based upon their beliefs.

I'm more then happy to engage any war supporter, at any time, on the topic of the idiocy that is the Iraq war and the weakness that leads people to believe that somehow, by supporting the war, they themselves are a part of it or 'tough.' If you are a member of our armed forces, then you are a part of the war. If you aren't, then you are still free to have whatever opinion about this foolish engagement you wish; but it does not confer upon you nor any other poster any sort of moral superiority, toughness, or extra 'patriotism.' Which is exactly what I said in my original post on this topic.

The fact is that for the vast majority of those posting here, there is no difference between our conflict and a playground battle. They treat it exactly the same way and the stakes for them personally are roughly equal.

The chickenhawk gambit is the first refuge of intellectual cowards. And seemingly their favorite.
WE are all in this war, either as taxpayers, as fighters, as leaders, as supporters or as seditious poultroons.
Since my son has a heart defect, and I am 50, should I be silent, as the poultroons desire, or should I stand on what I believe is best?
Or should I join NASA and work to be an astronaut, since I strongly believe in space travel?
Does the chickenhawk paradigm help or hurt Bill Clinton, since he dodged the draft as a coward, stated he hates the military, yet used the military to intervene in a civil war? This new chickenhawk framework is rather complex, so please forgive me.
Now I do understand that to the self-declared chickenhawk designators, W is a grand chickenhawk, even though he served in a very dangerous part of the service for several years because of critical papers his commanders wrote on a word processor 20 or so years after he left non-military military service he was in. And Kerry, who lies about his military service and lied about his record and lies even now about releasing his record, and who lied about his fellow soldiers, according to the chickenhawk designators, is a brave patriot, and not a chickenhawk or a coward or a liar.
So please, I am just a poor conservative, 'splain this to me, oh enlightened ones.
But I am certain that as soon as the chickenhawk designators get that pesky talk radio back under control, and the internet after that, we won't have to worry our heads about none of this stuff anyway.

What about all the ChickenDoves - those people who are against the military saying we should solve all disputes with dialog and peaceful resistance yet they refuse to fly over to Burma to stand and die with the monks?

What about JAGs (military lawyers)? They won't see combat. Are they excused from the chickenhawk slur?

Cycloptichorn,

What a bunch of hogwash. Whether or not going to war in Iraq was the best option is now irrelevant, the fact is we are there now and surrendering in Iraq will indeed affect all of us here in the U.S. It would embolden the terrorist into believing that we do not have the will to defeat them. And whether you like it or not, we are now in a battle of wills and the only way we will lose is if we lose the will to win. And if we (as a nation) don't have the will to carry on until victory in Iraq, we will definitely have to carry on the fight here in the U.S. Believing that the terrorist won't follow us here after a retreat of out Iraq is nothing more than willful suspension of disbelief.

mm,

Thanks for the response, but there is absolutely nothing other then buzz-phrases and slogans in your last post. It's like you've taken all the crappy justifications for the war that you've happened to run across in the last few hours, stuck 'em in a blender, and posted the result.

I'm not worried about 'emboldening terrorism.' The absolute fear some of you seem to live in! It's difficult for me to understand.

We aren't in a 'battle of wills' with anyone. Neither the terrorists nor Iran threaten the survival of America in the slightest, yet you ascribe the sort of language to them that is normally reserved for existential threats. Where is the Islaamic aircraft carrier fleet hiding? Nobody seems to be able to find their stealth armies or... wmd, hehe, either.

This whole "chickenhawk" thing is so stoopid. But then, of course, Al Gore won 80 percent of the high school dropout vote in 2000.

First of all, a "chickenhawk" in the bird world is a vicious killing machine, not the ineffectual Warner Brothers cartoon character most leftist college kids equate with the name. The name "chickenhawk" in fact refers to at least 3 different varieties of hawks, all of whom can swoop in on an unsuspecting animal and tear them to shreds faster than any smart bomb. And contrary to the name, they rarely go after chickens. I watch them at work in my lower orchard all the time-they like blue jays, at least around here (they must be anti-Canadian, eh?)

Back before many of today's young Democrats were born, we had two back-to-back Presidents, Dwight Eisenhower and John F. Kennedy, who were legitimate military legends. These two "non-chickenhawks" managed to drag us into a war that killed many times more young Americans than the current war. And all of those people killed were drafted, whereas the military today is all-volunteer.

Likewise, Jimmy Carter was a military man, and also held out to be an intellectual genius. This guy started the maelstrom that is the Mideast today, and his entire Presidency was a joke. He was rewarded with the Nobel Peace Prize.

Chickenhawk Bill Clinton, on the other hand, started a war of choice without UN approval, and is revered to this day for doing so by his groupies. At the time, he promised the lemmings who voted for him that the troops would be back home "by Christmas". He just didn't say what year.

At the same time, Mr. Bill ignored the human tragedy in Rwanda. He's also revered to this day for doing that by his groupies.

Hellooooo?

Isn't anyone smart enough to figure out that a chickenhawk is a bird of prey, not a cowardly democrat. A chickenhawk will take on any other animal, kill and eat it. One of Natures efficient attack/killing machines.

* that is classic...

Three Cheers for Tom W.

Who is this Tom Shipley?

Are you kidding us?

The wimpy Liberal insult, calling someone a 'Chickenhawk' is filled with so many overt contradictions.

It is rather childish, trying to demean others, instead being able to advocate for a sane position on an issue.

For example, isn't the Liberation of the Iraqi People an admirable effort?

Shouldn't we fight to bring freedom to the oppressed?

But we all know, the term 'Chickenhawk' is simply calling someone a 'hypocrite'.

Democrat Partisans are overwhelmed with hypocrisy.

Just like Al Gore driving a Limo, John Kerry owning a few SUVs, Hillary and Bill demanding ethics from others, etc...

Why do Democrats always want to raise everyone else's taxation, but fail to volunteer to give more money to Government themselves?

Perhaps, using the Liberal Definition provided, the biggest 'Chickenhawks' were those who served in the Clinton Administration.

Bill Clinton burned his draft card, wrote about his hatred for the MILITARY, but repeatedly deployed the US ARMED Forces in some very questionable efforts.

He used force in Kosovo, bombed Iraq as well as the Sudan, invaded Somalia and Haiti, etc...

Madeleine Albright would be a sincere Chickenhawk, using the Liberal attempt to smear.

Hillary never served but voted for the use of force in Iraq.

Perhaps, the biggest contradiction from the unethical Liberal Democrat Partisans, is pushing Ms. Rodham Clinton for the Presidency.

Because she voted to invade Iraq, to remove Saddam with force.

By using the Liberal-Progressive's own characterization of the term 'Chickenhawk', we could conclude that Hillary Rodham didn't have the right to vote on this matter, since she never served in the US ARMED FORCES.

Ironically, Hillary Clinton never volunteered to help with anything to do with the Mission either.

She is partly responsible for Our US Forces being in Iraq, and instead of leading the effort to ensure the success of an admirable operation, Ms. Clinton has done much to undermine the effort.

Isn't it pathetic?

The apparent popular front runner of the Democrat Party, Hillary Clinton, is being favored by those who call others 'Chickenhawk'.

YET, Ms. Rodham is by their own definition a 'Chickenhawk'.

Any argument that it is somehow wrong or dishonorable to support a war that you don't actually fight in is patently ridiculous on it face.

In WWII, we had 13 million people in military service out of a population of 130 million. So 117 million people were wrong to support WWII?

The Constitution explicitly gives control of the military to civilians. Truly believing that you can't support a war in which you don't serve must lead you to the conclusion that our Founding Fathers were fools.

mm,

You are correct, in your post previous to this one. Civilian control of the military is essential to our society and it's not prohibited to have or voice an opinion about the war.

But Chickenhawks believe that their support of the war makes them 'tough' or 'patriotic' and that those who don't support the war are 'weak' or 'unpatriotic.' This is a false notion, without merit. And a lot of people here engage in exactly this behavior.

By using the Liberal-Progressive's own characterization of the term 'Chickenhawk', we could conclude that Hillary Rodham didn't have the right to vote on this matter, since she never served in the US ARMED FORCES.

Not entirely true. She was, after all, Mrs. Commander in Chief for 8 years. That qualifies her for half of the CinC's retirement pay. If you follow the logic, receiving a DoD retirement check is proof of military service. Ergo, she is a veteran.

All she needs to do is make her DD214 public. Sen. Kerry can assist her in filling out the appropriate forms to do that.

Since Romney wants to increase the size of the military, why can't any of his won sons be bothered to enlist, they are all of age? Why are our elites not setting the example. Mitt got a draft deferment and preached in France during the height of the Viet Nam war. Now he wants to be commander in chief, and I must say, that bother me, that he want the power to send your son or daughter in harm's way, but neither he nor any of his family has stood up.

"We aren't in a 'battle of wills' with anyone."

You aren't. That's for sure. Go have another latte with all the other sophisticates and leave the war fighting to the insecure blue-collar losers you hold in such contempt.

They'll protect you even though you've got your head buried so far in the sand that all anybody can see of you is your fatuous, posturing, deeply silly rump.

Oh, and this afternoon I became a tree trimmer, too. I couldn't expect someone to voluntarily climb to the tops of my trees and put himself in danger to benefit me while I stood safely on the ground.

It's a question of morality, you see.

Current defining characteristics of the Left: people who can't win arguments logically, and rely on name-calling and emotional appeals.

Sadly the crackpot Left bases their scholarly definition of chickenhawk upon the diminutive sidekick of Foghorn Leghorn of Looney Tunes. So if someone asks you if you think Liberalism has finally gone Looney Tunes you'd be right to agree.

Should he have to become a pudgy fellationist to be a true Clinton supporter? Or a red doormat to be a proper Hillary dupe? To be properly supportive of vegetables he shouldn't be a crop duster he should be fertilizer. At least more literally than already.

For the most part, whether one supports the war(s) or not, it just an opinion. The opinion may be no more passionate than what a fair fine for a parking ticket may be, or really care about as much because they never get a parking ticket. Other times the opinion may be very passionate, as many get over abortion, and join marches on one side or the other, contribute $$$ to candidates based upon this stance, and vote for politicians based solely on that litmus test.
No matter how strongly felt, it, like all opinions, are like a$$holes, - everyone has got one and they all stink [unless you like it].

Now, playing the "chickenhawk" card, that is another game altogether. This is a demand to put your life where your mouth is, a demand to take up arms and/or risk you life in a bad situation. This is not an 'ad hominum'. It's a demand if you talk the talk, then walk the walk.

There is NOTHING inherit in the chickenhawk arguement that requires the proponant to be against the war(s)- a soldier in the sandbox has every right to feel strongly enough about supporting it to demand that all supporters put their lives on the line and support it.
Fair enough, ehhh, not asking from anything he's not doing himself.

Conversely, if you do not support the war(s) and rather than choosing to say "I oppose for x, y, z" label your opponants 'chickehawks' for not walking the talk, fair enough. Jihadis to the right, jihadis to the left. Just like Joe, they walk the talk.

Now, in either case, if you play the 'chickenhawk' card, and are not fighting on either side - YOU are the cowardly hypocrite - get your a$$ a passage through Jordan or Syria, depending on your side, and fight your cause.

Teachers see it all the time. They look out across their classroom, and kids have dinked out. Their imaginations took flight. And, while the bodies are in the chairs; their minds are elsewhere.

As to this call "that if you're not in the military, your opinion doesn't count," is bullshit of the highest order.

It's on par with kids who put their fingers in their ears and go "la, la, la.

In other words? It shot at you by people who have no interest at all in listening.

That's why hitler sold. He promised the brown shirts, who were the jerks of society; that they could wear uniforms. And, slaughter people who weren't armed.

That we have those types, too?

Yup.

Country's full of a whole assortment of people. Different habits. Different tastes.

When you'd doing this "chicken farming" bullshit; all you're saying is you found something "to engage." Why? At least teachers get paychecks.

There's no gain, here, dealing with the people who think they can hurt Rush Limbaugh! True. They don't like him. And, they hate his success. But what can they do about it?

Seems to me, the Bonkeys have been "trying stuff" for awhile. And, everything came up BUSTED. As if it was "made in china." And, arrives broken.

You want me to care? Please. Don't stand up. Because I don't give a rat's patoooti.

Was Rush in danger?

Is the Internet in danger of being taxed?

Can lightening strike ya?

Oh, and IMUS is COMING BACK; after receiving MILLONS from C-BS "to go away."

And, when Imus "went away" his advertisers jumped ship.

Some empty suits don't understand business. They don't know how you gain profits.

Rush Limbaugh? Well, THANKS to the Code Pinko's, and Hillary's Media Matters, Rush Limbaugh is enjoying a SPURT of activity.

While at the same time, Bush's moves in Irak (and Afghanistan), are paying off.

You do get to choose your fights. That's why we're not in Darfur.

And, that's why Israel is grateful for the assistance she got, in taking out two major WMD and nuclear facilities, being built over the years, in syria.

Taking care of business. Hasn't got much to do with parades. Works best when you're willing to say as little as possible. But you can walk and hum a happy tune.

Cycloptichorn, here's the problem with your reasoning:

Those who support the war do so because they are patriotic and because they are tough minded enough to reach their conclusions on the war based on logic and reason. Their position on the war does not "make" them patriotic or tough. Their position derives from their inherent patriotism and toughness.

On the other hand, those against the war are that way because they lack patriotism and because they are weak minded enough to reach their conclusions based on their emotions and feelings. Their position on the war does not "make" them unpatriotic or weak. Their position derives from their inherent lack of patriotism and their weakness.

My response to the "chickenhawk" argument is that I've served 2 tours in Iraq.

So fuck you, Shipley.

Cyclops said:

"We aren't in a 'battle of wills' with anyone. Neither the terrorists nor Iran threaten the survival of America in the slightest, yet you ascribe the sort of language to them that is normally reserved for existential threats. Where is the Islaamic aircraft carrier fleet hiding? Nobody seems to be able to find their stealth armies or... wmd, hehe, either"

Brilliant satire. I'm sorry to be disrespectful, but how can you be so ill-informed?

Before I get to your "Islamic aircraft carrier fleet" nonsense, let me ask you a simple question-were you actually alive 7 years ago? A relatively small group of terrorists managed to pull off the deadliest attack on America in the history of the country.

They hit 75% of their primary targets, which would be considered by military folks a pretty damned good day of work. But unlike Pearl Harbor, they killed civilians, including the innocent kids in the planes who were on a field trip for National Geographic.

It should also be noted that 2 of the 4 planes hijacked that day came from a single blue-state/city airport notorious for bad security.

One of that state's Senators, the guy who served in Vietnam and Cambodia at the same time on Christmas and New Year's Eve, thanks to an invention called the Halliburton Timewarp, got a written warning a few months prior to 9/11 by a retired FBI agent who warned him about the crappy security at that airport. Did he do anything?

The 9/11 attacks did in fact manage to put a major dent in our economy and in fact ran some companies into bad financial times, some of which were the airlines involved that day.

Now, as for those Islamic aircraft carriers...

60 years ago it took 6 Japanese aircraft carriers and some 300 planes to do a sneak attack on Oahu.

But a group with no ships, and an air force with no planes, killed almost 3 thousand American CIVILIANS

I want to thank folks like Tom Shipley, Jazz, and Cyclo for saying that folks like me - ones who are pro-Iraq War and have served in OIF - should be running the country. I look forward to his petition for a military dictatorship whereby I am given unlimited powers in deciding when and where this nation should go to war because I have fought in the most recent one.

The fact that our Constitution gives control to our civilian leaders, and through them, the voters, means nothing. All of you Chickenhawks bow down to your new military masters! I promise all kinds of fun reforms, starting with Naked Thursdays.

If someone supports the Democratic Party, but does not give 100% of their income above minimal living expenses to the federal government, is that person a chicken liberal?

If someone supports good digestion, but does not become a nutritionist, is that person a chicken sh... umm, never mind.

Can't we just drop the "chicken" arguments? They're meaningless.

Can't add much to what's already been said, but in playing the "chickenhawk card," folks like Tom Shipley are inadvertently making an excellent case for Selective Service. Indeed, a selective selective system with damn few deferments to boot.

So what if you're a college boy? Forget about it. Two years in the trenches will give you good "life experience." Conscientious objector? Not a chance--you can be a medic, a truck driver, a chaplain's aide, or pound a keyboard in an orderly room. You're gay? No problem--you can shoot just a as straight as anybody else (pun intended).

Hey, fair's fair, right?

Wouldn't that be a hoot: a newly crowned "President-for-Life Hillary" bringing back the draft on her watch, just to prove she isn't a "chickenhawk." The enraged screams from thousands of moonbats upon receiving their "Greeting" notices will be music to my ears.

Delicioussssssssssssssss......

John,

Not that it matters one bit, but do you know the ages of Romney's sons? How about 37,35,32,29 and 26. Safe to say that the ones in the 30's are not exactly ideal for enlistment. Even in WWII men that age with families were granted deferments. The 29 yo is borderline. Sure he could serve, bt once you get to that age, you may well have things in your life that make it pretty hard to drop and go to war unless we have another WW. So maybe you have a case for the 26 YO. Note that it is his choice, not his father's nor yours.

The there is the Prince Harry problem. As the brits found out, having PH in theater put more people in danger than it was worth. Would you be satisfied if the younger Romney served stateside? Should Chelsea Clinton be pressed buy her parents to serve in the Balkans? We still have troops there.

Last, what about the libs that say they support the war in Afghanistan. Should they or their children be forced to serve there? Not like I see them lining up to do so...see how stupid this train of thought can get?

I am sure this has been stated somewhere above ...

Ultimatly, the chickenhawk argument demonstrates, for those that use such things, that one does not understand the Constitution or, if one does understand the Constitution, one is willing to ignore the clear lanquage of it.

One does not have to be in or have been in the military to run it.

To assert otherwise, which is exactly what the chickenhawk argument does, means one is willing to be tempted by the inherent danger in that argument.

DocJ,

Sorry shipmate...but I don't think I'm not a Chickenhawk too (double negative used to demonstrate my confusion).

Unlike the real warriors (like Swede) so far, my time "in theater" has been on U.S. Navy warships. The only time "feet dry" was airborne. We blasted the enemy navy out of the water the my first visit to that part of the world (Desert Shield/Storm). Since Silkworms haven't started flying yet...the biggest threats are the old mines. Not much of a risk is it? Probably more risky just getting her back aboard the birdfarm.

The only killin' I've done was push button. I haven't faced down a lunatic with an AK-47 yet... If that makes me a ChickenHawk: "I'll take two scoops, pls."

The lefty socialists like Shipley are cowards all the way through. Their “world view” is very consistent in that regard. Their cowardice is evident whether it comes to facing down the lunatics...or trying to make it through life without a “Nanny State”…immoral cowards.

I find it amazing that those people who wish to defend the 'differntly abled' then trot out 'chickenhawk'. Are those that are unfit to fight, but put forth that their Nation has interest that must be met, are they 'chickenhawks'?

My own physical disabilities start with diabetes at the age where I could volunteer: I am sorry but I needed to understand my condition and learn how to survive, plus decide on higher education. That took awhile.

Prior to the onset of the first Gulf War I applied to two parts of the Federal government for employment: a part of USGS and also to DoD. I did, indeed, apply to many places in the hundreds, but only two had interest in my skills and I felt that it was right and proper to give back to this Nation and service to it, also. DoD beat out USGS by a handful of days, and I did and do support that mission to help the warfighter to fight well for the Nation.

On 9/11 I was incapacitated with backspasm, received a phonecall from my boss to make sure I was not on Flight 77... it turns out a colleague I knew had been, but that would take long weeks for me to find out. When work re-opened, I would spend a half-hour hobbling from my car to my office, and then request a transfer to direct warfighter support. Just in time to spell those doing hard work on long hours to make sure that the warfighters were prepared first for Afghanistan and then for Iraq.

With things stabilized I transfered to R&D to find new ways for soldiers to use those things we make here to better analyze and confront the enemies of the Nation. I worked hard and well at that, and still did not feel that I had done enough for the Nation.

In times past when those who could not fight due to conscience saw that their actions might harm the morale of the Nation they volunteered for medical studies. I see that as honorable and went through NIH to find research into my disease, and was accepted on a drug trial of a known medication with an unknown use. Strangely I would suffer from other prescribed medication doing me harm, and suffer severe disability and be unable to reliably be aware of my surroundings or even move my body. After 14 years in DoD I put it to my Agency that I could no longer function for much of anything at a work role. They agreed and I was disable retired from my job.

Two long years of finding out what was wrong, going through test upon test to finally isolate the cause and address the problem and plow through the paperwork to get benefits I did not rightly expect to get, but had to do to keep the bureaucrats happy, and I started to abate the worst symptoms of my disorder... and still remain in the drug trial as it was a different part of my metabolism it was addressing.

Now I have spent long time in recovery, and must address that I will never be able to walk around the block without stopping for minutes to rest, that I will suffer sudden lapses in my body and my conscious mind will be trapped inside it while the attack passes. I sorrow for the men and women I knew from work that face danger, and give money as best I can to Veterans aid groups, and pay out for those that embed with the military so I can get clear vision on our men and women in strange lands doing basic and good work to not only protect the Nation, but uphold ideals of universal liberty and freedom. Most of my worldly goods that I no longer need due to my condition I have given to charity, Veterans of previous wars but also medical charities for those less able than I am.

After all of that I get the lovely 'chickenhawk' slur thrown at me. I do take those that say that at their word, and that it is meant in malice towards me and my conditions that prevent my body from working properly. In trying to demean me, you demonstrate your hatred towards your fellow man and being unwilling to use the power of reason in your thoughts and outlook, or to even consider that your fellow man may not be as well off as you are. Such a hale and hearty world they want, excluding me from it, from society, and from having valid viewpoint outside of my conditions.

I feel that venom dripped on me and know the poison for what it is. Thank you for showing me the exclusionary and authoritarian vision you have of your beliefs against that of all others.

I volunteered for the job to serve in the Nation's government, none thrust it upon me.

I volunteered for medical trial, none pushed that in my way as something I must do.

I do not whine or complain about the insane bureaucracy, having been a bureaucrat myself.

I give my money and goods to those less well off than I am, even though I am in no great straights health-wise or financially.

How come those that spew 'chickenhawk' want the Nation to do as they want, and not give anything of use to the Nation and attempt to reason with their fellow man and not spew malice at them? I don't see them lining up with mountains of forms for medical trials, and there are drugs and vaccines and tests that go begging for people to volunteer. I don't see the charities overflowing with cash and goods so that new warehouses need be rented and new banks started to handle the overflow of such kindness. And I don't see the long line at jobs to volunteer for low paying work, in dark and dank conditions in the Nations military and intel areas, to better help understand the nature of the enemies we have today. Mind you, I drove by the CIA entrance on a January morn in 1993 and remember the police gathered there... I thought an accident at the time... not a directed killing from overseas against my colleagues... you take up that work for the Nation and you are a target.

So I gots a question for those that would attempt to label me thusly: Who the hell are YOU to JUDGE me as the FINAL arbiter on my SACRIFICE?

Yes, the chickenhawk argument is the escape hatch for debate and a fine banner for the intellectually deficient.

While many dwell on the direct military investment of an individual to justify further hearing of a "valid" point of view, consider that people performing even the "mundane" deserve their speech... and not just because civvies, by design, control our nation's arms. No war is maintainable without finance. Neither is it sustainable without troop morale. Something as seemingly inconsequential as working hard to keep a nation solvent and productive or, yes, even being a member of the 101st Fighting Keyboardists to let those on the lines know with full certainty that a nation backs their efforts even if politically aspiring electees try to undermine them due to selfish ambition are entirely honorable. More than that, these inconsequentials are vital, collectively, to stiffen a nation's resolve especially when times get hard.

You can bet that those who volunteer for the most active duty appreciate the inconsequentials at home. I figure they would rather get full support when they are sent while understanding that they have opted in so that others don't have to. I figure also they'd want that support continued such that their mission can be expeditious even if they disagree with the reason for their assignment. Simple folks giving a strong, supportive voice provide the valuable currency of free speech representative of this nation. Soldiers want that loud support, whether by word or by script, even if they ultimately fight for their comrades. They're also honorable enough not demean those who may not carry a weapon but who boost soldier morale in their own small way.

swabjockey,

I see your point: you haven't been awarded a Blue Max and at least three Purple Hearts from more than one incident of ground combat in which you personally held off battalion-sized enemy units with only a broken knife while dragging not less than a half-dozen wounded GI's to safety despite the loss of at least one limb. Therefore, as far as libs are concerned, you ARE a chickenhawk.

You also didn't get a fragment in your ass from one of your own grenades, but we'll skip that...

But don't worry. You may not be Alvin York, Audie Murphy and John Kerry all rolled into one, but I don't think you have to hang your head around here.

Bravo Zulu!

My post was one of clarification. Tom W. wrote "I support the police, unfortunately I don't have time to join" (or something close to that). I was just stated that the term chickenhawk does not apply to those who support the military, but those who support a specific action yet don't take part. So, if he were to say "I support law enforcement" or "I support putting out fires once they start" that would be more appropriate.

Now, I have never used the term chickenhawk. I do my best to refrain from name-calling when talking politics. It's counter-productive and obscures and points one makes. And by definition, most of you are correct in saying it could apply to democrats too.

Thinking more about it though, I think in it's truest form, a "chickenhawk" is someone who pushing a foreign policy that aggressively uses military action, yet when they were of age they avoided serving in conflicts that they presumedly supported. (and yes, I am thinking of a couple people specifically here, but I think the term was coined with specific people in mind.)

I think there is something distasteful about that. They had the opportunity to serve in a conflict that they thought was right for the US, but didn't. Now they are asking American men and women to fight in a war most Americans don't support (and they misled us into.)

The classic one I heard in high school: "You can't have an opinion about illegal drug use without trying it yourself."

So why aren't Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton "chickenhawks" by your definition, Shipley? After all,he resorted to deceit to evade the draft, and she never volunteered to serve.

Maybe you mean that because they opposed the Vietnam War, they can't be called "chicken hawks", only "chickens"?

What about people who are physical cowards, but understand the importance of a strong military, of supporting that strong military by other means (participating in programs to boost military morale, or raising funds to help the families of deceased or wounded soldiers), and absolutely believe that military action sometimes is required in the defense of the nation? Are they chickenhawks too?

Folks, it's as simple as this. One does not have to put one's life at risk, to voice an opinion.

"Posted by Tom Shipley | October 5, 2007 3:43 PM

The chickenhawk argument is not meant for people who support troops, but who support a specific war as vital or just yet either A) Don't join the fight themselves or B) Don't encourage family members to do so"

I used to think of Hawks and Doves and then I changed to Hawks and Ostriches, now I think of Hawks and Dodos ;-)

What reacts with hysteria when they see a Chicken Hawk?

;-)

Opinionator:

The Romney boys are all within enlistment age, and they were 6 years younger on 9/11. Why did they not sign up then?

If they don't won't to serve, that's their business, but I am not going to vote for Mitt, who dodged the draft, and now wants to be the Commander in Chief?

What happens if President Mitt sends men into battle and they are killed at WWII rate, 7,000 and 10,000 in a week, while Tagg is playing golf. How is that going to play in middle America?

With a small minority to Americans volunteering for military service while the rest do not for whatever reason, this argument is not going away. Our elites of the political and media rarely enlist, nor do their children. Webb, McCain and Hunter served and have children in the service, those are the few.

In Burns' War film, one theme was the notion of shared sacrifice, the whole nation came together to fight the axis. That sense of unit is gone now, and I do not see it coming back, at least in my lifetime.

"Folks, it's as simple as this. One does not have to put one's life at risk, to voice an opinion."-shooter242

Everyone in America has the right to an opinion (or even the right to have no opinion at all), but respect for one's opinions is not a right; it must be earned.

It had occurred to me a while back that if you were a supporter of a "woman's right to choose" and you hadn't yourself had an abortion then, by the logic of the anti-war people, you would be a "chicken abortion-supporter." Yeah, I know, I need to work on the name ;-)

Dear "other ken."

Medicine does not have a word for miscarriage.

Most women experience them. Some don't even know they got pregnant.

By the way, the inserted contraceptive, called IUD's (inter-uterine device) ... meant the egg could very well be conceived. But it's got no wall onto which to attached. End of story for that egg.

Again, go ahead. Make up all the names you want.

But there was a very good scene in the play "QUILTERS." Set back in the 19th Century. Where one woman character has had a dozen children, already. And, she begs not to have to have another. Her male doctor couldn't care less. So she cries out: "I wouldn't take a million dollars for any of my children! But I won't give you a plug nickel for another!"

As to safe abrotions; which we have now, since ROE became law; it sure beats the ugly back alley abortions; where women died. Many of them were moms with kids at home.

Oh, yeah. There's another statistic. Now that women can control the sizes of their families? They live longer, too.

In the old days, given how pregnancies were dangerous; where women died of infections. And, fevers. It was not uncommon for many women to be dead by the time they reached the age of 23.

One of the stupidest things the republican party got locked into was this "ROE" thing. It gave you absolutely incipid confirmations. And, boy did you pick up lemons! You think David Souter and Anthony Kennedy didn't "play" the system?

You don't think Larry Craig played the system?

Have I got news for you!

Too bad politics got taken over by fringe lunatics, right and left.

The left? Not about to solve its problems. Affirmative action has left them bereft of leadership.

Alas, ditto, this is true for the Pubbies. Not a decent leader in sight.

But we can fix this. We've fixed other things that stopped working.

Heck, here's a history lesson for ya. When the name Susan B. Anthony shows up ... You can now find out why she was important. Because SHE registered to vote! She voted for Ulysses S. Grant.

Ah, but women weren't given the RIGHT to vote till the first presidential election. In 1920.

Okay. If you're slow. Ulysses S. Grant wasn't the candidate in 1920!

Susan B. Anthony was just ahead of her time!

Yes. She had a jury trial. The judge, though, terrified the jury was gonna rule in her favor; sent the jurors home. AND, he then ruled her guilty! To make sure she stayed out of jail, he came up with an innovative solution: She had to apy $100 fine FIRST. She'd serve her jail time, after she paid her fine.

Susan B. Anthony did not serve one day in jail.

By the way, "other ken," cute names don't make for persuasive marketing.

Ah, and yes. We have had a sexual revolution. It's not wall-to-wall affirmative action. (Not any more!)

Leave it to a cowardly lefty --- On the one hand he claims: "I don't use the tactic of name calling"...then, with the same breath, babble on trying to justify the very same tactic. Immoral cowards.

As Carol demonstrate, abortion is seen as a way for women to overcome a man's control over her.

Thing is, as also Carol demonstrates, the one is who hurt is in abortion is NOT the man, but the unborn child.

So, what good has abortion really done?

Not much, but folks like Carol are willing to 'go to the mattresses' for such a delusion of power.

Carol makes an extremely sad commentary on women, in general, if her statements regarding abortion should be considered factual and true, which they should since they mirror the lies that started the abortion crap anyway.

Keep repeating the things you hear over and over everyday on talk radio, brainwashed neo cons.

If you're eligible to serve [healthy, heterosexual and 41-or-under] and support the war, you have an obligation at least to consider volunteering for military service.

If you support the war only if "other people" actually fight it, then you're a Yellow Elephant.

But because you're still eligible to serve, it's still possible for you to do the right thing: Be A Man! Enlist!

By our definition, Chickenhawks are too old to serve. If Chickenhawks really want to Support President Bush, they can encourage their eligible-to-serve relatives and friends, their circles of influence, to volunteer for military service.

If they won't even do that, then they're not only Chickenhawks; they're Pussies!

quickjustice-

What about people who are physical cowards, but understand the importance of a strong military, of supporting that strong military by other means (participating in programs to boost military morale, or raising funds to help the families of deceased or wounded soldiers), and absolutely believe that military action sometimes is required in the defense of the nation? Are they chickenhawks too?

Everyone, including "physical cowards," has a right to an opinion, but respect for one's opinions is not a right; it must be earned. Whether and how a "physical coward" earns respect for his opinions is his responsibility.

I can respect a "physical coward" who acknowledges being a "physical coward," and listen to his opinion with an open mind.

However, I cannot respect someone eligible to serve who supports the war only if "other people" fight it, who refuses to explain why the war requires their sacrifices but not his own.

He can express his opinion, but I'll express mine, too.

I think y'all are just arguing strawmen here. You think that in order to support anything, the argument is that one must contribute to the production of that thing - law enforcement, firefighting, teaching, what have you. But that's Apples and Oranges.

To put the matter into the proper context, you would have to support Fires and Crime, as well as war? Because the issue is really the war, isn't it. See I'm a veteran, and I've seen combat, but currently I'm supporting peace. I'm doing that through my vote, my participation in groups like Iraq Veterans Against The War, and Veterans for Peace.

If you support war, you should support it through service in the armed forces. If you support fires, you should do that through your work as an arsonist. If you support crime, then you obviously should be a criminal. I don't support fires, and I don't support crime. Fortunately, as a society we have people doing jobs that help combat those of you who do support fires and crime.

So, to make this analogy proper, if you support fires and crime, then by all means go become arsonists and criminals. If you support war, then go become soldiers.

There, now the arguments are oranges and oranges, not apples and oranges.