# Obama and Biden: chickenhawks? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 10, 2013, 5:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-and-biden-chickenhawks/668506 "2013-09-10T17:31:07Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2013, 10:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-and-biden-chickenhawks/668506/21 "2013-09-10T22:20:02Z")
A hawkchicken? ---
**Author:** ![marshmallow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/df705f/32.png) [@marshmallow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/marshmallow)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2013, 11:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-and-biden-chickenhawks/668506/22 "2013-09-10T23:57:18Z")
Their advocacy boils down to “i-if it’s OK with you, dear” so maybe a chicken-chickenhawk. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2013, 12:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-and-biden-chickenhawks/668506/23 "2013-09-11T00:00:45Z")
Why, when there are plenty of legitimate reasons to criticize someone, must people reach for the absurd? No - it’s not a fair characterization. ---
**Author:** ![sqweels](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f19dbf/32.png) [@sqweels](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sqweels)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2013, 12:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-and-biden-chickenhawks/668506/24 "2013-09-11T00:38:59Z")
> [@SlackerInc](#): > > The liberal peacenik crowd is of course opposed; but the Republican side has suddenly found their inner [dove] just in time to oppose a Democratic president. \*Re-\*discovered, you mean. One of my all-time favorite newspaper cartoons dates from the time of Clinton’s military operations and depicted an elephant dressed as hippie shouting “Hell no, we won’t go!”. There was a firestorm of opposition on the Right to both the Bosnia and the Haiti operations–I remember the phrase “body bags” being bandied about–and it was even more obvious that this was simply to deprive Clinton of the boost in popularity that presidents usually enjoy when they take military action. Of course Clinton was endlessly lambasted for having avoided the draft during Vietnam, and this is part of the framing of the issue. So what we have here is the Right bitterly opposing low-casualty wars and attacking their CinC for not having served, then installing an absolute rogue’s gallery of chickenhawks who dragged us into and cheer-led for high-casualty wars amid an orgy of militarism, and now they’re pathetically trying to apply the same onus to a CinC proposing a no-casualty war. ---
**Author:** ![PhillyGuy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ed655f/32.png) [@PhillyGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PhillyGuy)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2013, 12:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-and-biden-chickenhawks/668506/25 "2013-09-11T00:39:43Z")
As for the OP, that’s namecalling. When I was in, I think, 6th grade, it was one of the [seven types of propaganda we were required to memorize](http://quizlet.com/2472312/7-types-of-propaganda-flash-cards/). I realize that calling the OP propaganda is also namecalling. It’s tough to avoid. As for the substance: John Kerry is generally hawkish. Has been for decades. He’s a good fit with his party on most issues, but not on military policy. [Edward Luttwak must feel a bit vindicated this week.](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/3612331/John-Kerry-will-make-his-adoring-anti-war-groupies-look-like-fools.html) As for Barack Obama, while no pacifist, he is a bit more reluctant to use force than the average US president. And his military goals are limited. But Obama is hardly unwilling to use force in dangerous circumstances. Look how often he bombs Pakistan, a nuclear power! I support a red line policy against use of highly deadly poison gases, especially against civilians. So I think that a short Obama-style (it would not have been Kerry-style) missile campaign against Syrian tanks would have be a good move, and a far better idea than what we keep on doing in Pakistan. ---
**Author:** ![Leaper](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/4bbf92/32.png) [@Leaper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leaper)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2013, 1:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-and-biden-chickenhawks/668506/26 "2013-09-11T01:15:39Z")
I expect this is meant to be followed up by, “Well, then, Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/whoever must not be a chickenhawk either!” I’m not 100% sure what relevance this would have in 2013, but it’s my guess as to the point. ---
**Author:** ![JRDelirious](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jrdelirious/32/9531_2.png) [@JRDelirious](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JRDelirious)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2013, 2:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-and-biden-chickenhawks/668506/27 "2013-09-11T02:21:09Z")
Maybe. Discredit the epithet itself by making it mean anything so it means nothing? Hmm… On the merits of the question, though: > [@Bricker](#): > > Why, when there are plenty of legitimate reasons to criticize someone, must people reach for the absurd? > > No - it’s not a fair characterization. What he said. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2013, 2:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-and-biden-chickenhawks/668506/28 "2013-09-11T02:22:16Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > Do you find it relevant that Joe Biden has a son who serves in the military? Not particularly. It’s at least no more relevant to me than GWB having a father that served in the military. > [@YogSosoth](#): > > One advocacy on strikes does not make one a war monger. Obama and Biden have plenty of history not supporting war … I question your math skills: bombing campaign in Lybia and drone strikes in Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia. > [@elucidator](#): > > I know several men who opposed the war, got drafted and aren’t sure if they killed anybody or not. And who _wish_ they had fled to Canada. Which war are you talking about? Vietnam? > [@Leaper](#): > > I expect this is meant to be followed up by, “Well, then, Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/whoever must not be a chickenhawk either!” > > I’m not 100% sure what relevance this would have in 2013, but it’s my guess as to the point. Something like that. More a curiosity about how (in)consistent people might be at applying that label. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2013, 3:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-and-biden-chickenhawks/668506/29 "2013-09-11T03:12:31Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > Not particularly. It’s at least no more relevant to me than GWB having a father that served in the military. Why did you answer this one question I posed, and ignore the more substantive one? ---
**Author:** ![Bozuit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/edb3f5/32.png) [@Bozuit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bozuit)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2013, 10:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-and-biden-chickenhawks/668506/30 "2013-09-11T10:22:05Z")
The idea of “chickenhawks” baffles me. The real implication is that only those who have served in the military are fit for presidency, which stinks of unpleasant militarism. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2013, 1:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-and-biden-chickenhawks/668506/31 "2013-09-11T13:07:08Z")
I think a better definition, if it helps clarify it, is “someone who will ask other people to offer their lives for a purpose he wouldn’t offer his \*own \*life for”. ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2013, 1:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-and-biden-chickenhawks/668506/32 "2013-09-11T13:24:15Z")
> [@Bozuit](#): > > The idea of “chickenhawks” baffles me. The real implication is that only those who have served in the military are fit for presidency, which stinks of unpleasant militarism. We have a winner! One’s service in the military or lack thereof is in no means any indicator of one’s fitness for public office nor of one’s right to render opinions on public policy. ---
**Author:** ![Peremensoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ce7236/32.png) [@Peremensoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peremensoe)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2013, 1:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-and-biden-chickenhawks/668506/33 "2013-09-11T13:32:49Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > It’s way, way too early to tell- but it’s hard to see how giving up all his chemical weapons (if it works out this way) would be a victory for Assad. Losing his chemical weapons (maybe not all of them) hurts him a lot less than losing his airstrips and rocket batteries and such. Also it would seem to immunize him against any future intervention. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2013, 1:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-and-biden-chickenhawks/668506/34 "2013-09-11T13:37:34Z")
Simply staying in power would be a victory for him, even if it’s by the simple ruse of pretending to have given up his means of terrorizing his people. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2013, 1:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-and-biden-chickenhawks/668506/35 "2013-09-11T13:41:32Z")
> [@Peremensoe](#): > > Losing his chemical weapons (maybe not all of them) hurts him a lot less than losing his airstrips and rocket batteries and such. Also it would seem to immunize him against any future intervention. I’m not sure about the second part, but the first party doesn’t really matter- the stated goal is to eliminate his ability to use chemical weapons, and giving them up without military action achieves that. We’ve already stated we’re not out for regime change. If Assad actually gives up his chemical weapons peacefully, then that’s a big win for the US (and Russia)… even if there were some real-time diplomatic blunders, in ten years (if it works out this way) what will be remembered is that the US threatened strikes and Assad gave up his chemical weapons to avoid the strikes. ---
**Author:** ![Peremensoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ce7236/32.png) [@Peremensoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peremensoe)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2013, 1:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-and-biden-chickenhawks/668506/36 "2013-09-11T13:52:25Z")
The goal is to punish him _for_ using chemical weapons–to reduce the likelihood that he or other despots will choose to use chemical weapons in future. I do not believe that either diplomacy or limited military action can literally _eliminate_ his ability to use chemical weapons. Samantha Power just says strikes would “degrade Assad’s capacity to deliver” such. That is, by taking out general military infrastructure and hardware. Which, she goes on to say, obviously hurts his conventional power too. If Assad can avert _that_, by token gestures of compliance with an unverifiable agreement on chemicals, he stands a greater chance of holding on to power. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2013, 2:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-and-biden-chickenhawks/668506/37 "2013-09-11T14:05:59Z")
> [@Peremensoe](#): > > The goal is to punish him _for_ using chemical weapons–to reduce the likelihood that he or other despots will choose to use chemical weapons in future. That’s part of it, and giving them up is not as much “punishment”, I suppose, as air strikes. But I think the positive of a peaceful (besides, of course, the civil war) solution makes this course of action better. One of those compromises that actually helps all sides (except, perhaps, the rebels). > [@](#): > > If Assad can avert _that_, by token gestures of compliance with an unverifiable agreement on chemicals, he stands a greater chance of holding on to power. Again- (assuming he actually gives up the weapons) the US doesn’t seem to have any interest in regime change, so this doesn’t really matter. ---
**Author:** ![SlackerInc](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slackerinc/32/275_2.png) [@SlackerInc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SlackerInc)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2013, 2:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-and-biden-chickenhawks/668506/38 "2013-09-11T14:07:59Z")
> [@](#): > > So what we have here is the Right bitterly opposing low-casualty wars and attacking their CinC for not having served, then installing an absolute rogue’s gallery of chickenhawks who dragged us into and cheer-led for high-casualty wars amid an orgy of militarism, and now they’re pathetically trying to apply the same onus to a CinC proposing a no-casualty war. Agreed, except I’m sure veterans of earlier wars–especially the few remaining from Korea and World War II–find it annoying that we would call Iraq and Afghanistan high casualty wars. ---
**Author:** ![Peremensoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ce7236/32.png) [@Peremensoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peremensoe)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2013, 2:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-and-biden-chickenhawks/668506/39 "2013-09-11T14:12:26Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Again- (assuming he actually gives up the weapons) the US doesn’t seem to have any interest in regime change, so this doesn’t really matter. Maybe not to you. But it would certainly be a victory for Assad. ---
**Author:** ![Lemur866](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lemur866/32/434_2.png) [@Lemur866](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lemur866)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2013, 4:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-and-biden-chickenhawks/668506/40 "2013-09-11T16:06:36Z")
> [@Peremensoe](#): > > Maybe not to you. But it would certainly be a victory for Assad. If you want to punish Assad for using chemical weapons, that means either killing him or putting him on trial at the Hague. Neither of those two things can happen without an invasion of Syria. So do you want an invasion of Syria, yes or no? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-and-biden-chickenhawks/668506.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-and-biden-chickenhawks/668506.md?page=3)