Intellectual honesty would also demand that you recognize that FDR kept the US out of WW2, despite extreme pressures both domestically and internationally, until the US itself was attacked. What choice was left to him, or to anyone else who would have had the job, then?
If you wish to paint Clinton as a chickenhawk, you’ll have to show how he determined to commit US troops to war in the face of civilized-world opinion, without consulting anyone, in disregard of the facts on the ground, with no preparation for the action’s conduct, no thought of its aftermath, no consideration that things might not go as fantasized, with no exit strategy. Got any examples, while we’re discussing intellectual honesty?
You’re aware, aren’t you, that FDR didn’t contract polio until he was close to forty years old?
And no, ElvisL1ves, I don’t want to paint Clinton as a chickenhawk. I don’t want anybody to be painted that way.
It’s cheap rhetoric, useful only for attacking somebody, and does not consider the circumstances that may indeed require military action.
My entire enlistment was served during the Clinton administration, and included not only service in a conflict but also duty in unstable and potentially dangerous countries. Now, I had my political issues with Clinton, but I never questioned his legitimacy in office, nor my duties toward him as Commander-in-Chief.
Thus proving my point. Reading in context is your friend.
If I wanted to say the troops, why wouldn’t I just use the word “troops”? It’s shorter and to the point.
I think what I wrote was reasonably clear, if the reader is not a hypersensitive jingoistic flyboy with delusions of self-grandeur who leaps to conclusions about real and imagined slights to the armed services at the drop of a hat. As evidence of this thesis, I’ll simply note that no one else had any problem understanding what I wrote, which suggests that the intent of my message was clearly communicated to the 99.98% of Dopers who aren’t Airman Doors.
(Primus, save me from hypersensitive jingoistic flyboys with delusions of self-grandeur…)
Bullshit. What you said was, and I quote, that the war was “supported by thrice-damned cowards”. I think it’s fair to assume that the troops (or at least a majority of them) would be included in those that support the war. When you’re making grand generalizations, don’t be surprised when people misunderstand who your intended targets are. You’re talking out your ass, and you got called on it. Instead of admitting your statement left room for interpretation, you get defensive and blame others for not being able to “read in context”.
To you, maybe. When I read it, it was pretty clear to me that he was talking about “supporters” primarily, if not exclusively, as civilians…most importantly, Congresscritters, political leaders, and the rest of the riff raff.
Frankly, never occured to me to lump in service persons one way or the other, being under orders, they have an entirely different set of parameters.
Yeah, that’s what I took it to mean, but I also acknowledge that, from a purely logical/argumentative point of view, the statement was still sufficiently all-encompassing in the way it was worded that I can understand Airman Doors drawing his conclusion. Instead of basically saying “Screw you for trying to twist my words around/not reading my mind”, why don’t you just concede that you should have put more thought and less knee-jerk into your phrasing?
As I said, just because it didn’t occur to you (or me) doesn’t mean the (blanket) statement was specific enough that it wouldn’t occur to anybody. And even taking your even more specific interpretation of what was said, it still comes off as stupid. I’m sure some “Congrescritters, political leaders, and…riff raff” who support the war have indeed served their country in combat and aren’t all “cowards” (I’ll assume that’s the way he meant the insult, since that wasn’t really clarified, either).
Hey, I’m left-wing and against the war, too, but that kind of gross generalization (especially when used to impugn a perceived “group” of people) is not only mindless and alienating, but is exactly the kind of thing I thought we liberals were supposed to be opposed to.
Pardon me for not peppering my original short-and-succinct message with a dozen footnotes to clarify the matter for the slower readers.
Since I have no interest in pursuing this stupid sidebar any further, I’ll simply say I’m sorry that Airman Doors has the comprehension skills of a doorknob. Maybe he can stop being such a knob in the future if he bends over and takes that flagpole out of his afterburner.
[QUOTE=Misnomer]
I always thought “chicken hawk” was slang for “pedophile” (usually referring to a gay man). When did “chickenhawk” start meaning someone who supports war but is unwilling to fight?
QUOTE]
I wrote William Safire a while back, suggesting that that evolution was a good subject for his language column. He hasn’t gotten around to it yet.
Well, the “thrice-damned cowards” certainly seems to be off-base: it isn’t necessarily disproven by the statistics but the most likely explanation is that those who feel strongly about an active foreign policy are more likely to enter into the military.
Of course the majority of those that support the war will do all that they can to avoid service, especially if they are likely to live long enough to enter politics, but likely even more total pacifists avoid the service.
Or would those who shout coward be satisfied with nothing less than %100 enlistment?
Oh, bullshit. You made an absolutely slanderous blanket statement, I called you on it, and you’ve done nothing but weasel since then, trying to find a way out. There is no way out of it. You’re wrong. Not all war supporters are “thrice-damned cowards”, and all of your cries about context will not change that no matter how much you wish it to be true. There was no context. It was an overt, stand-alone comment that made no exceptions whatsoever. I showed you several hundred thousand exceptions, but of course that’s just not good enough for you. You want to believe that every war supporter is a coward, willing to send people in their stead. You’re wrong. Period, full stop, end of story.
Nah, Dave. We’re civilians. Our default setting is “civilian”. When we make sweeping generalizations, without qualifications, you can assume we are talking about civlilians. You may have noticed when we are talking specificly about service personnel, we say so. Because that is not the default setting.
The default setting in America isn’t civilian, it’s citizen. And some of those citizens happen to be in the military, or are veterans.
The military isn’t a bunch of paid mercenaries, despite their professional volunteer status. They really aren’t terribly different from other Americans, and include a good number of liberals and Democrats in their ranks.
Blanket statements about the American public will include them. It would be wise to consider that in the future.
You think the gucks who get their news entirelyt from broadcast media are going to even KNOW what “hubris” is. Gotta keep it simple. Liars, fools, crooks and fascists would be a better set of descriptors. And if you have a word or term that has the same or better punch than “Chickenhawk War” I’d like to hear it.
Well, this is a well-thought out and reasonable concern, but I wonder if such concerns are likely to prevent a Dem from getting elected when the Pubbies evince no such concerns in the electoral efforts.
Sorry, I missed this message amongst the flurry and I’m only now picking up a few minutes of spare time here and there.
There are still serveral differences. The first is that Vietnam was a war which went against his stated convictions. Vietnam, however, had the same ‘flavor’ as Iraq. To go into a soverign state, attempt to stop the spread of a certain ideology, fight a guerilla war… so it isn’t necessarily inconsistent to support one war and oppose another.
Moreoever, to my knowledge, Clinton never did two important things in this debate. 1) was never a cheerleader for a war, especially one which had too few troops and needed more 2) never called everybody who disagreed with him on the war a ‘friend of terrorists’ ‘unamerican’ ‘unpatriotic’ etc…
To my mind, those open up a new dynamic.
Unless I’m mistaken, weren’t the wars that Clinton sent soldiers to UN approvoed, and didn’t need any further troops to work well? Admittedly, I’m not, primarily, a student of history, so I may very well be incorrect.
I mean, though, wouldn’t there be a difference between commiting troops to a scirmism/brush war and invading a sovereign nation with the intent to occupy it?
Perhaps… I don’t know enough about FDR to make a determination, to be honest. Nor do I see Clintion in the same light due to the two factors I suggested. But, if you would like to provide more evidence (yes, I know, the date is late) I would certainly be interested in continuing this.
I don’t. But I have several words and terms that, used in conjunction with each other in sentences and paragraphs, describe the war more accurately and more truthfully.
See, the problem I have with the OP is you’re looking for magic propoganda bullets against popular lies; such bullets don’t exist. And I wish I had some easy approach that could catch hold and be applied in unison and that could clear the vision of those who are captive by those lies, but I don’t. I kinda know what won’t work, and I kinda know what’s effective on a small scale, but I’ve got no idea how to turn a nation headed down a dark road. But I have faith that there will be a turning, sooner rather than later.
Here’s what I think won’t work:
We don’t need divisive terms. The President and his party have already divided the nation by using fear and loathing.
We don’t need deceitful slogans. The truth is on our side. Let’s not make that an accident by failing to be on the side of truth.
We don’t need punchy new insults; we need to spotlight where men and women entrusted to wield power on our behalf have perverted and forsaken the values that the huge majority of our fellow citizens hold.
And most importantly, pithy one liners won’t help us counter that narrative of fear & loathing that’s been so skillfully woven by the turdmongers.
We can only reveal lies by telling the truth. So let’s name the liars, crooks, fools and fascists for what they are, without insulting those we mean to persuade. God help us if we can only reject and deny.