Ok… so you tried and didn’t serve for a reason beyond your control… congrats your not a hypocrite… but what about like minded people ? Why aren’t they turning up to stand up for their support of the war ? We aren’t discussing what YOU did… but what why others didn’t…
Now hitting back with the silly "you don't defend your little sister" is pathetic... sorry. Your idea of masculinity and courage obviously involves hitting on others and defending your turf.You’re wrong.
The Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps all met enlistment goals for FY 2004. This was the case for FY 2003 as well. In addition, Army reenlistments are at a 14 year high.
These factors are contributing massively to the problems with the Army and Air National Guard. They used to get many members from veterans leaving active duty. This pool is much smaller now due to stop-loss orders and the huge number of military members choosing to reenlist.
There is a problem with Guard enlistment, but that seems to be the only manning issue facing the military at this time.
Sources: http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/04353/428818.stm
http://usmilitary.about.com/od/joiningthemilitary/a/2004recruitgoal.htm
So, anybody demanding that Americans pony up should note that they are doing so, in a great many cases. Just like I did when I was a younger man, and was needed for a conflict.
This chickenhawk rhetoric just infuriates me. It is not logical, as the OP shows. It serves only to divide Americans, rather than foster a proper appreciation for the sacrifice many of us are making.
I don’t think leroy_the_mule really gives a damn about the men and women serving in the armed forces, except as a rhetorical tool for his ends. He certainly isn’t noting their service as honorable and appreciated. To the extent he cares about it, it’s to go after others who don’t meet his standards of moral perfection. If he were faced with a veteran who was a hawk, he’d dismiss them as a warmonger without appreciation for their past service.
Pathetic.
See also theis thread: Enlistment rate in U.S. Army–is it dropping?
However, those figures don’t mean that army recruitment is without problems. In order to meet it’s recruiting goals, the army has had to draw down it’s reservoir of recruits who sign up for deferred enlistment:
Its Recruitment Goals Pressing, the Army Will Ease Some Standards
That means that the real effect of the Iraq war on army recruiting, whatever it is, will show up next year.
Leroy aside, do you think that the basic point is valid? That there are a number of people who vocally supported and support this war but who make no material contribution to the cause?
I must be missing something… because several people so far in this thread have pointed out that they did serve.
Of course you’d be thanked and applauded for your service, but just as certaintly, the OP isn’t directed at you.
I don’t understand why the charge of chickenhawkery amidst war-cheerleaders is taken to heart by those who’ve put life and limb on the line in the service of their nation.
You served, yes, many others have, and are serving.
But, there are also a bunch of folks who’v gone as far as to say that anybody opposing the war is a traitor/unpatriotic…
I think the OP was directed towards those folks, the love it or leave it crowd, the most vocal “patriots.”
That those folks, who rally for war but go home to a wife and kids, those folks who should be called on the carpet.
If it is overused, yes.
Obviously not every war supporter is a chickenhawk.
But, again, many in the administration are, and certainly many “patriots” in America are.
Those who served are obviously not chickenhawks, because they served.
Question for leroy, Finn, etc: If the US were to enter a war that you supported, would you enlist?
Keep in mind, I don’t take it personally, since it’s not directed at me, as you point out.
I do feel that it’s stupid rhetoric, though.
Anybody who lives here, pays taxes, and is entitled to vote should be encouraged to have an opinion about this conflict. Since this is true, it then follows that someone may find themselves pro or anti war based on an examination of the issue.
Now, calling someone a chickenhawk essentially means you don’t feel they can morally take a pro-war position due to their personal history. Problem is, nobody loses their voting rights by not serving. And I don’t think pressuring someone to vote against their conscience is exactly honorable political behavior.
We have now, and have had for a long time, an all-volunteer force. That is necessarily going to make military service less of a shared national experience, and will open more and more of us up to the chickenhawk charge.
I don’t think that’s right at all, and I say that as a veteran myself. I realize that my service, however brave or honorable, does not confer upon me any special moral clarity on any issue.
Depends on how deeply I "supported’ it, doesn’t it?
Subpar non-answer.
Agreed.
I simply believe that people have a very real civic duty when dealing with such votes. To wit: votes which determine how the lives of their countrymen will be spent and which people from foreign countries they will be bombing.
Making a life or death decision like that is not the same as other matters we vote on, and to a degree some Americans have become inured to war.
I will of course agree that going with one’s conscience is to be encouraged.
But. Calling someone a chickenhawk means that yes, they’re willing to send people off to die and to kill and they will not do a damn thing to support/help/ameloriate/end the killing and dying.
They have a moral right to have whatever opinions they want, and to follow those opions.
That does not make those opinions or the methods in which they follow those opinions are moral.
And no, this is not to say that one cannot vote for a war without enlisting. But to vote for a war without actually supporting our troops, or the country that will inevetably be devestated once our bombs start falling…
It seems that one can reasonably vote for armed intervention in situations where it is easily contained by existing forces. I can also imagine, and cite, situations where that is not the case.
In a circumstance where current troops are not sufficient, and your military is stretched near its limits, hopefully those who truly believe that a war is a good idea would put their money where their mouth is.
And I think that we need to adopt a new paradigm where sending our sons and daughters off to kill and die in foreign lands is taken much, much more seriously by the voting populace.
Not moral clarity exactly. But as someone who put life and limb on the line, and in service to your nation, you most likely would not take the issue lightly. I would wager that you understand what a vote ‘for’ war entails in real terms for real people.
It seems, at least to me, that a great many Americans are ready and willing to cheerlead for war without doing anything to actually support the troops.
It’s not my fault that you are attempting to make a multi-valued context-dependant situation into a ‘point winning’ question.
Now, if you’d like to debate in good faith, we can explore the various situations in which various wars should be supported, and to what degree support would be necessary and in what forms it would and should be expressed.
IOW, non-veterans get a pass from you if they vote the “right” way.
:dubious:
If ‘in other words’ means ‘things you didn’t say.’
then yes.
Well then what is your position? Because that sure is your implication.
Hey idiot, the question was asked using a generalization and I answered it. You also use pussified passive aggressive bullshit language like “You claim you tried to enlist”. That is what pisses me off, and no I don’t get troubled over people who exercise their right to support the war, speak out and basically enjoy their rights just as you do and why the fuck should I? If the “critical left” and that is what I said, not “Democrats and liberals” aren’t opponents of war why then do they champion the anti war cause and bolster anything anti american? Can you explain that?
The hope of the jihadis and Saddamites is that they can persuade the critical left that this war, like Vietnam, is unwinnable, wrong, evil, blah blah woof woof. Now what we have is the critical left blowing smoke screens of hary cary denying they bought the T shirt to Saddams cause. It ain’t my gig, it’s theirs.
Nice spin but no cigar.
I don’t know if it has anything to do with my masculinity or maybe it’s about my conviction, fuck with me and mine and get fucked back. It doesn’t matter to me that you don’t liken yourself to that philosophy, just don’t tell me how to live or chide me for what I stand for.
Wow, you’re none too bright are you? How does the “generalization” apply to you? If you tried to put your money where your mouth is, it doesn’t.
No, that’s factual language. You made a claim. I cannot confirm or deny it, since I have no access to any relevant information. But, just FYI, I tend to use agressive-aggressive language when I feel the need. Such as this: You are a cunt.
I can’t explain it because it simply has no resemblance to reality in the least. It is moronic, and only lends credence to an argument about your own intelligence. It reflects tortured grammar and abused logic, as well as traditional right-wing bullshit.
“Hary cary”? Wow, you are stupid.
Alright let’s start with a few simple questions. Ready?
That’s pretty easy. It means any one of the following:
a) Get rid of Saddam, have flowers thrown at you, be welcomed as liberators, get favorable oil contracts, promote a democratic revolution throughout the middle east.
b) Get rid of Saddam, give contracts to Haliburton and other sundry campaign contributors, get re-elected, hope that some day, the other shit in option (a) happens.
c) Slink off, and whine about how the liberals lost the war.
Option (a) is pretty much out of the question. Option (b) is fine, already happened. Option © is happening as we speak.
As Korzybski said “I have said what I have said, I have not said what I have not said.”
My position stands as it is above, if you want elaboration I will certainly give it.
I’ll wait for you to ask more specific questions as I’m not quite sure what exactly to say, as I don’t read or intend my comment to imply that one has to vote the “right” way. That is, if you mean right=Democrat.
I do, however, believe that ‘there is no justification for war’ should indeed be the null hypothesis. And only after it is clearly proven that American lives are in danger and/or in the case of humanitarian missions we’re actually going in to help people, should the null hypothesis be rejected.
And even then, the decision should not be taken lightly. We’re sending men and women to fight, die, and kill other men, women, and children. This is heavy shit.
And, not to put words in the OP’s mouth, but my complaint would not so much be directed at those who supported the war, but those who did so in defiance of facts, those who claim that it’s all tea chit and chat in Iraq, those who claimed that other Americans were traitors or unpatriotic for not wanting to wage war.
Dont assume anyone who supports this war automatically supports any war our President decides to start, that is a misconception based on self reflection from the left projected onto the right. It’s a lame tactic but very predictable. If the people who like to join the military and collect that check aren’t willing to go to battle, a battle they aren’t going to choose, maybe they shouldn’t join. What the fuck do you expect, that we pay these people to protest and sit on their asses and find fault like you do? If that were allowable you would be in the military for sure, right?