Does one need to be in a war to be a veteran?

**White_Male_Canada** · 03-15-2007

Originally Posted by LG

Originally Posted by White_Male_Canada

``Chicken hawk" isn't an argument. It is a slur -- a dishonest and incoherent slur. It is dishonest because those who invoke it don't really mean what they imply -- that only those with combat experience have the moral authority or the necessary understanding to advocate military force. After all, US foreign policy would be more hawkish, not less, if decisions about war and peace were left up to members of the armed forces. Soldiers tend to be politically conservative, hard-nosed about national security, and confident that American arms make the world safer and freer. On the question of Iraq -- stay-the-course or bring-the-troops-home? -- I would be willing to trust their judgment. Would Cindy Sheehan and Howard Dean?

The cry of ``chicken hawk" is dishonest for another reason: It is never aimed at those who oppose military action. But there is no difference, in terms of the background and judgment required, between deciding to go to war and deciding not to. If only those who served in uniform during wartime have the moral standing and experience to back a war, then only they have the moral standing and experience to oppose a war. Those who mock the views of ``chicken hawks" ought to be just as dismissive of ``chicken doves."

People who toss around that slur mindlessly endorse the idea of military autocracy over a broad representative democracy. Only in juntas do we see societies where military experience is a prerequisite in determining the policies of a nation. The same people who sling this insult are the first to turn around and call their political opponents "fascists", exposing an intellectual shallowness that colors the rest of their writings.

No one here has said that military experience should be a prerequisite in determining foregin policy. What is clear however, is that some members of the conservative party have found it awfully easy to send America's boys (and girls) to war, even though they themselves cannot contemplate what war is like. And it is abundantly clear that the people on these forums who advocate military force by the US are the ones who know the least about what serving in the military is like. I would be more interested in a veteran advocating diplomacy than in a hawkish youth who has never served but advocates war becuase the veteran has seen what it is like to be involved.

The chickenhawks of the Republican party have not only not fought but have avoided fighting. And they are keen to send America's young people to war but would never send their own children. "Chickenhawk" may not be a term you like but it is not a dishonest slur. If liberals can be branded as "libtards" and "commies" by you and your entourage of schmucks, then I think we can use this one term against you. Unlike "libtard", which means nothing, the term "chickenhawk" signifies a great deal.

It signifies both hawkishness and cowardice. I don't think that only those who fought should decide on whether military action should be taken but I do think that those young enough to fight should either shut up or ship out. If the war is honourable and Iraq is heaven on earth (lower homicide rates than Detroit, you once claimed) then why aren't you there fighting? And what is guyone doing "heating and lighting the earth" as "a chef in New York" or whatever he actually is? He should be there too. If you have the gall to claim this is a just war, then have the guts to join in. If not, then you are in fact, chickenhawks. End of story.

And, whatever you called me in these pages "bolshevik", "communist", "marxist", "stalinist"and other such offensive but meaningless or inaccurate term, I personally never called you a fascist. A moron maybe, but never a fascist.

All your eloquence melts like a snow cone at the equator when anyone asks what branch of the service did Bill Cliton serve in ?

Hmm ? Where did Clinton, both hillary and bill serve? Or did Bill run off to europe and disappear behind the iron curtain, became Prez and launched a war against a country that did nothing to the USA with no Congressional resolution.

Chickenhawk my ass.

LG · 03-15-2007

All your eloquence melts like a snow cone at the equator when anyone asks what branch of the service did Bill Cliton serve in ?

Hmm ? Where did Clinton, both hillary and bill serve? Or did Bill run off to europe and disappear behind the iron curtain, became Prez and launched a war against a country that did nothing to the USA with no Congressional resolution.

Chickenhawk my ass.

All your language ability disappears like water vapour in the noonday sun when you are pissed off, WMC.

I was never a Clinton apologist. The issue here is not so much Bush and Clinton but you and your neocon schmuck-buddies. You are the chickenhawks.

In any case, the numbers don't lie. You know how many Americans die in Iraq. You know Bush never used diplomacy. You know he had no UN backing. You do the math, professor. If you can. And then maybe you can come up with a reasoned argument.

And take those sunglasses off. You still look like a dork when you were them.

**White_Male_Canada** · 03-15-2007

Originally Posted by LG

All your eloquence melts like a snow cone at the equator when anyone asks what branch of the service did Bill Cliton serve in ?

Hmm ? Where did Clinton, both hillary and bill serve? Or did Bill run off to europe and disappear behind the iron curtain, became Prez and launched a war against a country that did nothing to the USA with no Congressional resolution.

Chickenhawk my ass.

All your language ability disappears like water vapour in the noonday sun when you are pissed off, WMC.

I was never a Clinton apologist. The issue here is not so much Bush and Clinton but you and your neocon schmuck-buddies. You are the chickenhawks.

In any case, the numbers don't lie. You know how many Americans die in Iraq. You know Bush never used diplomacy. You know he had no UN backing. You do the math, professor. If you can. And then maybe you can come up with a reasoned argument.

And take those sunglasses off. You still look like a dork when you were them.

And just what is the definition of a neo-con?

Don`t tell me you are now competing with the Village Idiot for her crown !? I don`t think you`re that stupid and you know very well what a neo-con is and what they were before being mugged by reality.

Oh, of course Clinton had no backing for his "war of agression" against a country that did not sponsor terrorism and did nothing to the USA.

So all this hot rhetoric about chickenhawk this and coward that is just that, rhetoric and hot hyperbole. That and complete ignorance of Art. II.