So, here I was reading this thread when I find that yet another gung ho supporter of the war was, surprise, never in the military.
So, for those who were so adamant for war, say, specifically, Iraq, were you ever in the military?
Sam Stone, who knows absolutely everything there is to know about the military situation of every nation on earth and exactly how they should use their military. Espeically the US.
Brutus, when his posts exceed one line, has been known to rattle off the weapons and armor loadout on various military hardware.
And on and on, blah blah etc.
So, we have a very vocal bunch of people (sometimes referred to as the Usual Suspects) around here who are very eager to to see militaries being used. They also have a serious aversion to admitting those militaries have made mistakes or were used badly.
It could be explained by a residual esprit de corps, but is that the case? Or, like the current occupants of the White House, are they just a bunch of chickenhawks?
Hijack and personal experience: My father drove a tank in the American Army, right in the front lines into Germany in World War II. When I was in college, during the Viet Nam War, his advice to me was to get out of being drafted, however I could. He even said that if I needed to flee to Canada, he’d support me financially.
My best friend’s father spent WWII as a radio operator in Texas. He was in the army, but never was in combat and never left the Continental U.S. He couldn’t understand why my friend wouldn’t WANT to be in the army, it was “such a wonderful experience” (his words.)
I think the OP wants to imply that actual combat military experience reduces enthusiasm in getting into wars. Whilst being out of the army can make people “chickenhawks”. I agree with the OP… I just don’t like the way some people are against any war at all.
I'd just like to add that I'm a military enthusiast and I know the equipment, etc... but I'm no gung ho war supporter.
I just want to know if the people who are so eager to have people put into dangerous situations were ever willing to potentially put themselves in similar situations.
Simple idea, really. Just, perhaps, phrased in a confrontational way.
Maybe the onus should be on you, initially, to provide evidence that these posters you have in mind are as “eager” as you say they are. Currently, it looks like some serious well-poisoning.
One of my friends was exeedingly outspoken in favor of the Iraq War. Then, his government department decided to send him to Iraq for a month (this was about four months ago). When he came back from having to spend time in the war zone with pistol and body armor, working with the U.S. army in various tasks, he was still completely in favor of the war.
Several others I know who are in favor of the war and support Bush are current or former military, some of whom served in Gulf I, and some of whom have a constant risk of being sent to Gulf II.
Am I an idiot for wondering, or an idiot for kicking over an anthill?
My point exactly.
Anyone looking around at threads from before the war would find that I gave sailor (whereever did he disappear to?) for his absolute pacifism in the face of the upcoming war. His position was that, since innocent civilians would certainly be killed the war was totally unjustified and inexcusable. If everyone thought that way I could conquer the world with a handgun simply by threatening to gun down an innocent any time someone didn’t give me what I wanted.
ADUSAF, for example I may disagree with, but I would never call or even insinuate him as a chickenhawk. After all, his ass will be put in danger long before a civilian in Canada…
My dad was a non combat vet. was totally against the Gulf war I (wasn’t around for this one), thought Nixon was “hounded out of office” and was anti draft dodger etc. However, he was also absolutely against his grandsons serving.
I’ve seen vets totally for the Gulf War I and II, and against. Combat and non.
Just like any other generalization, this ones worth exactly as much as the tar it’s painted with.
I looked at your linked thread and I do not see any posts from Sam Stone or Brutus…so what is this OP really in reference to? Where is the link to this “gung ho” supporter mentality?
I’m not sure of the OP’s definition of “chickenhawk.” I always thought of a chickenhawk as someone who is gungho for war but takes active measures to avoid being in a combat situation – even if it results in someone else being put on the front lines who objects to the principles of war.
Some posters here may support the war but never have been needed in the serivce – the wrong age, poor vision, etc. Believing that going to war is the right thing for your country to do does not mean that you also believe that it is right for you to enlist. Many factors have to be weighed.