Martin Hyde
Glad we agree on this.
To some extent, I’d say this is what the OP was trying to express.
Supposing you think that the war is very very important, but you think that staying home and raising your infant and toddler children is very very very important? So you’re in favor of persons going to serve, but you don’t feel that you can do so yourself because you have a more pressing commitment?
Are you, in this scenario, a chickenhawk? What would you be if you abandoned your (percieved) more important task to go off to war?
Who are you addresing here?
The ‘you’ in there is the generic ‘you’; sorry but I have a bad habit of using it when I mean ‘some arbitrary/theoretical person’. And I’m interested in hearing a response from persons who think “support people going off to fight” + “not volunteering to go off to fight” = “chickenhawk”. Methinks there’s a false dichotomy in there somewhere and I’m trying to ferret it out.
Restating so as not to get all ‘second person’ on people:
Supposing a person thinks that the war is very very important, but they think that staying home and raising their infant and toddler children is very very very important? So they’re in favor of persons going to serve, but they don’t feel that they can do so themself because they have a more pressing commitment?
Are they, in this scenario, a chickenhawk? What would they be if they abandoned their (percieved) more important task to go off to war?
begbert2, if I may respond.
I’ve avoided the word “chickenhawk”, and prefer the word “participant”, or “non-participant”, as the case may be. As I’ve indicated, I recognise the need to keep the economy going, and to raise the young. But, and this is a big but, from where I stand it does not mean you get a free pass. If you support a war, noble or ignoble (especially ignoble), you need to demonstrate your support by committing more than mere words. From my perspective, you somehow would need to find a way to raise your kids and simultaneously share in the hardships that go with a war effort. How you would do that, I don’t exactly know. But if you wanted my respect as a soldier fighting a war that you supported, and from which you gained a benefit, directly or indirectly, I would want to see you do more than just cheer me on.
My context and my personal experience is as a drafted soldier, forced to fight a highly controversial and confusing armed conflict. Those who were not eligible for the draft, and those who could somehow beat the draft, went about their lives reaping the benefits of this conflict, without any visible sacrifice. To me this is patently unfair. Thus I have what is arguably a very jaundiced view of non-participants.
In my view, you would need to somehow participate. I know, it’s an emotional view, and some would say it’s idiotic, but there you have it.
The following is not necessarily my opinion. I’m just answering your question the way I understand the OP’s point of view:
[newcrasher]The point is not whether the person was able to go off and fight or not. This person has children, so obviously the right choice at that time in that person life is to stay home and raise them. But before that person decides “I’m in favor of persons going to serve and fight this war”, he or she needs to look deep down inside and ask himself “Is this cause so great that I would actually be willing to die for it?” It’s one thing to say “This war is good and I support it. I believe this war is important enough to risk soldiers’ lives” but quite another to say–and be completely truthful–“I would be willing to die for this cause. I believe it is that important. If I was not currently raising my infants or (insert pressing career or family obligation here) then I would put my life on the line to help ensure victory.”
People who are supporting this war, but who don’t actually believe it is worth their own life, are chickenhawks.
People who are supporting this war and claim that it’s actually worth their own life, but aren’t actually serving in the military, are probably lying. Or probably just not being honest or sincere with themselves. They should think about the question again and decide if they would really be willing to give their life for the cause.
People who are supporting this war, believe it is worth their life, and who enlist in the military to join the fight, are not liars or chickenhawks, but they probably should reevaluate their priorities.
[/newcrasher]
… to continue:
If all people, especially the Policy Makers and Head Honchos in Washington, would agree to NOT start a war unless they can honestly answer YES to this question, then we would not be fighting senseless wars.
They dont have to actually enslist themselves, they have a duty as a (Senator, Congressman, Secratary of Defense, whatever) but before they agree to support a war they have to believe the effort is worth THEIR life… not just the life of SOLDIERS.
Begbert2
Read my posting #56 - those are prime examples of what I’d call chickenhawks.
Someone like Jack Kemp is medically unfit to fight in a war yet at the same time was playing professional football ??? (Just for a stunning contrast, please read about Pat Tillman and his professional football career.)
I don’t know about you, but Jack Kemp’s incredible hypocrisy gets me very upset. Yet, he and other patriotic “duty shirkers” such as John Engler and John Ashcroft achieved high status in the political arena if for no other reason than they kept themselves alive by sleazing their way out of the draft. Perhaps one or more of those folks might have ended up as a name on the Vietnam Memorial had they actually set foot in the country of Vietnam. :mad:
Okay, and now for the person, I have so far omitted from this discussion - our current Commandable In Chief - Dubya Bush. He “bravely” joined (with LOTS of help from Dad) the Texas National Guard knowing full well this was his guarantee of staying home and NEVER going to Vietnam and avoiding having to do some actual fighting. However, how about his “Mission Accomplished” strutting aboard that aircraft carrier - in front of people that were actually involved in a real war? I find it repulsive that he was playing “pretend” soldier.
Can you say chickenhawk? If nothing else, please read posting #56.
Mellivora capensis
Very well put. I was fortunate enough that the Vietnam War ended (as well as the draft), a few months before I graduated college. Oh yes, I got my student deferments - HOWEVER, I was actually planning (did I have a choice?) of joining the military. I probably would have joined the Navy as my brother did 4 years previously. Being four years older than I am, my brother graduated college in 1969. Fortunately, he did very well in the Navy and he came home in perfect health.
Mellivora capensis
Knowing what you know now, would you have been so willing to go into the military given the “illustrious” behavior of our current “leaders”? I was somewhat skinny back in 1973 but never thought of starving myself just to get a draft deferment. If I were eligible for the draft now, after hearing about John Engler’s severely debiliating “infirmity” (2 pounds overweight) I’d make damned sure I was 2 pounds underweight.
Whenever the draft starts up, I wonder if there’s going to be a sudden outbreak of equally “tragic” medical ailments among people of draft age. Given the behavior of some of our leaders, I wouldn’t blame this generation one damned bit if they were less than willing to do the fighting that their elders were too chickenshit to do. :mad:
Anyone who supports a war, and also supports the use of conscription to fight the war, and avoids serving himself cannot possibly be “maligned”, as such a person deserves any and all scorn and contempt that may fall upon his head.
That analogy works well enough to make the key point, which is that chickenhawkism does not consist merely of deciding not to fight in a war you support, but doing so while supporting a system that denies that choice to others.
Kemp, Ashcroft, et al can avoid the name of chickenhawk if, and only if, they were on record as advocating the abolition of the draft to a degree commesurate with their support of the Vietnam war.
I guess I would question how would “sharing the hardships” actually help. For example in your previous post about this you talked about the civilian basically living on base, doing all sorts of things that are unnecessary to their job, sacrificing as the case may be time for raising their children and increasing the costs of the war by requiring more resources for them to share your experience. All of this for no benefit to the war effort.
It seems to me the only tangible way civilians can contribute is paying higher taxes so that you can get paid more and get better equipment.
Curiosity question: do you think that your position as a drafted soldier gives you different opinions on this matter than you might have had you enlisted voluntarily?
And I notice that you don’t seem to be distinguishing between persons who believe the war should be fought and those who don’t. Now, as a drafted person you might not support the war, and there might be some ‘why me and not them’ stuff going on here, but realistically, should a person opposed to a cause be required to make sacrifices to it? And, wether or not a person supports the war, should they have to invent these sacrificies if there are no avenues for them to actually assist in the war effort? (“I’m going to live in a tent for the duration!”)
And Bear_Nenno, I think that this statement:
is the one wherin the false dichotomy lies. It is not “all persons who support the war to this extreme degree are either serving and lying”; it’s “all persons who support the war to this extreme degree are either serving, lying, or have some other priority that they consider equal or even more important.” As the decision to enlist or not is a personal one, one would presumably have to know a person’s entire set of personal motives and priorites before having solid ground from which to accuse the person of lying/cowardice. As most of the time we don’t know people’s motives and priorities, most of the time we shouldn’t be calling people ‘chickenhawks’, especially not when talking about people generally.
Not that I don’t think that politicians abuse their ability to send others to die for lesser causes. I’m merely saying that the people who shout ‘chickenhawk’ at those who support of a war have as much basis for those accusations as who shout ‘anti-american’ or ‘terrorist’ at those who oppose it.
On preview: wolf_meister, you’re swinging around specific instances of ‘chickenhawkism’, where you have more imformation upon which to speculate about the individual’s motives. (You’re still speculating, though. 
) Note that the OP does not target specific cases, but instead is levying blanket general accusations; this perspective is fallacious due to the false dichotomy.
And I don’t think that a draft can ever be supported morally. When you’ve run out of people who are willing to fight; it’s time to stop fighting; and if horrible things happen to the homeland as a result, well, the people chose it.
Because newcrasher seems to be merging the two in his posts in this thread, and since he is the thread starter I’m trying to phrase my responses within the confines of what he has said.
For example:
From what I can see he is equating being willing to enlist with actually joining the marines, and doing your duty.
Furthermore, I felt some confusion on this matter too, I wasn’t sure if he was saying people who support a war should be willing to fight in it or that they should actually fight in it, so I asked him a clarifying question:
To which he responded:
Which means, he doesn’t want to force anyone to serve, but if someone is willing but doesn’t ACTUALLY serve then he considers them chickenhawks, a stance that I view as stupid.
However, for the record, I don’t think there’s anything wrong with supporting a war and being unwilling to fight in it, given certain circumstances. I think when the need is clear for a large civilian enlistment (WWII, for example) then there are individual cases where someone who is unwilling to fight is being selfish, but even in that situation there are justified cases in my opinion.
So in summation kaylasdad99, that’s why I’m equating the two for the purposes of this discussion.
I think the word is a loaded term designed by one particular type of person to insult another type of person.
You need to get clear on what you’re saying, then. I’ve asked you specifically and directly:
To which you responded that you wouldn’t force them but if they don’t, they are chickenhawks. My assertion is that’s bullshit, and just highlights the fact that chickenhawk is a meaningless, insult term.
I was not aware this thread was a veiled attempt to get on a soapbox about the current Iraq war, had I known that I’d have never gotten involved in it. I thought you had some sort of interest in actually discussing the involvement of citizens in the wars their society fights, and what circumstances justify them not involving themselves and what circumstances merit they involve themselves. If that’s not the case then I’ll say that I’m done with this thread.
My reply to this statement is: Under that standard we would also never have liberated Kuwait.
Is newcrasher saying he would prefer Kuwait be the 19th Iraqi province right now?
Seriously, have you even fucking read the thread?
- Newcrasher has never restricted this discussion to draft situations. He has said if you support ANY war, whether it be a war that involves conscription or not, you have a responsibility to FIGHT in said war, unless you are physically unable, if you do not, he labels you a “chicken hawk.”
I ask this, how many people here, in this thread, who were of fighting age in 1990/1991 wanted to see Kuwait liberated? How many of you enlisted to help bring it about? How many of you consider yourselves chickenhawks?
- In the specific case of persons who DO dodge a draft, I’ve already said I find that criminal, so you’ve proven at least twice over you either have not read the thread, or have, and are simply too stupid to understand it.
Wow, that sucks. I’d like to think that Kuwait would have passed that litmus test for most people. I’d be sad to learn otherwise. Though, you’re probably right…
Personally I believe the liberation of any country or countrymen from tyrannical or oppressive communist rule is worth dying for.
To answer your question:
1)I was not of age.
2)I would have wanted to see them liberated and supported the war effort.
3)I would have enlisted to help, depending on my current responsibilities at the time. (ie., had I not been so focused on Middle School, or if I was raising toddlers or something)
4)I dont consider people who choose not to enlist, but still support the war, to be chickenhawks.
… And to be quite honest, I have no clue what that word means. I only know that it’s a tiny bird that keeps trying to kill Foghorn Leghorn. If someone could help me out on this one. I gather from this thread that it is some type of hypocrit or poser?
5)I dont believe that other people should be willing to die for a war before they support the cause. That’s why we have soldiers. I think the “would I be willing to risk the lives of soldiers” is a prudent litmus test for war.
I disagree.
I don’t think the entire country should be willing to go fight in a war where THEY ARE NOT NEEDED. We had a global coalition with so much overkill it was RIDICULOUS. We were never in any danger of even remotely being prevented militarily from knocking the Iraqis out of Kuwait.
Why should people be inclined to go where they are not needed? Sometimes it can cause more trouble than good.
Note the Cartooniverse thread he posted days after 9/11/2001, detailing his experiences helping with emergency relief. He made mention that there came a time in some situations where, eventhough he was trained he really didn’t belong in certain situations anymore, becuase the professionals were already there and more hands weren’t needed.
I would hope that most people would be willing to liberate a sovereign nation. However, we have a CIVILIAN government, and I think your unwillingness to involve yourself in a military campaign that is neither short of men or really even needing more should earn you the derisive label “chickenhawk.”
It doesn’t make sense for people to want to get involved where they are not needed. When I see a house burning down and firefighters already on the scene, do I leap out of my car and rush into the burning building? No, I don’t. Would I be willing to rush into a burning building to save someone? You know what, I would. But would I do it when there are already enough people to DO JUST THAT? When my being there may actually cause more harm than good? Hell no.
I agree completely.