I don’t understand what you’re trying to say.
At any rate, the worthiness of any given war can stand or fall on its own merits, regarless of the military service record of the war’s proponents.
I have never heard the term “chicken hawk” used this way; when I saw the thread title, I thought that Merijeek was going to be accusing some Dopers of being pedophiles! :eek:
Yes, and when someone is all tough as long as someone else is doing the fighting, that’s what I’ve always considered chickenhawkery.
I was against the war because I didn’t feel that Iraq was a threat to the USA. It’s pretty clear that I was right, no matter how hard some people try to spin it.
No, I do not think that civilians should keep their opinions on the war to themselves. Thanks for at least changing the coat on that straw man from its last appearance a couple posts up.
It just sickens me when some people are so hot to start a war knowing that they’re completely safe far, far away from any danger. Because someone else is taking the risk, it seems like a good idea.
Like Rashak said, it seems like combat veterans are always a little more cautious whne it comes to needlessly starting a war. Why do you think that is?
-Joe
could you substantiate this hypothesis? (and I’ll grant you that both Bush and Cheney would qualify as noncombat vets pro war)
Merijeek – so what’s your beef with sailor’s pacifism?
I was asking an honest question, not putting words in your mouth.
Read more Franken.
I don’t know whether I’d qualify as a chickenhawk or not. I’m an honorably discharged vet, and served during the time of the first Gulf War, but I was in the Navy and spent my service far more concerned about steam leaks, or civilians (US), than gun toting foreign nationals.
My feelings about the idea of renewing the war in Iraq have always been ambivalent. I never felt that there would be anything other than a period of violent chaos after the fall of Saddam Hussein, no matter how it happened: military action, old age, interneceine conflict, because of the nature of the government in Iraq there was no chance of a stable regieme following Hussien, no matter what happened. Add to that, based my understanding of the terms of the peace agreement after the first Gulf War there had been casus belli since about 1995 or 1996 between the inability of inspectors to say that Iraq lacked WMD, and Hussein’s various internal atrocities. I was never particularly against the current war, though I never thought it was a very good idea, either. That doesn’t change my view of how the actual occupation has handled - poorly IMNSHO.
Basically, at this point, I’m of the opinion that the US has a moral responsibility to make sure Iraq has a stable self-government when our troops leave. Until that stable government has been established - we have to keep troops there.
I, uhh, wanted a career as a chemist. I’m good at being a chemist, no need to rush off an be a mediocre soldier. Plus I have to pay off all those pesky loans…
I supported Iraq invasion, but I ain’t no chickenhawk. I am bona fide draft-dodger and a traitor. I dodged the draft, didn’t go to Afghanistan and even celebrated my country defeats there. That was in Soviet Union in 1980-s. I had an experience of living under totalitarian regime, that’s why I supported Saddam removal.
<hijack>
Need a lab tech?
</hijack>
And of course the remove at all costs of that nut in NK too right?
Funny how NK and Iraq are different like that.
I do believe that there is a huge difference between NK and Iraq: Iraq has no large, nuclear armed nation willing to spend troops like water to keep US or UN led troops away from its borders. Certainly MacArthur’s public desire to go north of the Yellow river gave more credence to the Chinese concerns in 1951-1952, but… that does make the two situations very different.
A CPA could be strongly in favor of both properly filed tax returns and a particular instance of military intervention. That he chooses to act on the former should not preclude him from publicly advocating the latter.
Merijeek do you believe military service should be a prerequisite for candidates of the Presidency?
Yeah! And what’s up with those chickenphoenixes who are all gung-ho for fires being put out but somehow never seem to be part of the voluntary fire brigade?
As long as it didn’t involve any risk that you’d have to be inconvenienced, or watch bystanders get maimed, or get blasted with shrapnel, or have someone shoot you in the head and leave you to die in a desert far from home, eh?
Sometimes I wonder if it shouldn’t be the other way around - people who are anti-war can be told to shut up unless they are combat veterans. That way, we can be sure it is not simple cowardice that motivates their protest. Sort of what people said when Vietnam protests died down quite a lot after the draft was rescinded.
I think Merijeek’s game of “Pin the Ad on the Hominem” can be played by all sides.
Or failing that, we could consider arguments on their own merits.
Regards,
Shodan
Given how IMO voluntary fire departments are deader than disco, a more appropriate analogy would be folks who want fires put out but refuse to pay the taxes needed to keep the fire department running.
Bad analogy – surely “chickenhawks” are fine with part of their tax dollars going toward the military.