Chickenhawks

[elNastioBananaHando]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chickenhawk_%28politics%29


Chickenhawk (also chicken hawk and chicken-hawk) is a political epithet used in United States to criticize a politician, bureaucrat, or commentator who strongly supports a war or other military action, but has never personally been in a war, especially (but not always) if that person is perceived to have actively avoided military service when of draft age. The term is a deliberate insult, meant to indicate that the person in question is cowardly or hypocritical for personally avoiding combat in the past while advocating that others go to war in the present. Often, the implication is that the person in question lacks the experience, judgment, or moral standing to make decisions about going to war.
The term was first applied to vocal supporters of military action who were perceived to have used family connections or college deferments to avoid serving in previous wars, particularly the Vietnam War. In current usage, the label is used almost exclusively to describe prominent conservative and neoconservative supporters of the Iraq War who have themselves never been in combat. Those who use the term are generally but not always on the political left; most factions or individuals labeled "chickenhawks" are members of the U.S. Republican Party. The label is not usually applied to women (who traditionally are not expected to serve in combat) and to members of the Democratic Party, even those who voted to support the war but have never served in the military (as they are perceived as being less "hawkish"). People who use the term have not necessarily been in the military themselves; people labeled "chickenhawks" have sometimes served in the military, but have not seen combat. The term is used most prominently by civilians to describe other civilians, and is not usually associated with current members of the military.
Opponents of the term argue that it is an ad hominem logical fallacy, that it is historically unsound, that it is inconsistently applied, and that it suggests ideas that are contrary to certain fundamental principles of American democracy.


My question to the masses is this. Would you more likely support a person who has seen combat as opposed to someone who hasn't? Do you believe it neccessary to have exp on the battlefield in order to be able to make decisions when it comes to war?



Does anyone know if my role model Donald Rumsfield ignored advice from top generals? If so did any of those top generals serve in combat before?

[reddaisy6]

Originally Posted by elNastyAndy69

My question to the masses is this. Would you more likely support a person who has seen combat as opposed to someone who hasn't? Do you believe it neccessary to have exp on the battlefield in order to be able to make decisions when it comes to war?

There can be drawbacks to this issue, but me personally I would rather support someone who's seen combat in regards to making decisions on war. But I wouldn't want them to be TOO Sgt. Hartman about it. If that's the case I'd have to really weigh the pros & cons.

It's basically like asking would I rather a mechanic work on my car or just someone who's been around cars.


The end.............

[E-Nice]

Originally Posted by elNastyAndy69

My question to the masses is this. Would you more likely support a person who has seen combat as opposed to someone who hasn't? Do you believe it neccessary to have exp on the battlefield in order to be able to make decisions when it comes to war?

The main flaw in the iraq war was bushies/rummy's rush to baghdad. Commanders wanted to slow up and kill the fayadeen and secure the weapons caches they found. Rummy denyed all requests. it was baghdad or bust. now our troops are being killed by the enemy they already had in their sights and blown up by the weapons and explosives they already had their hands.

uh.. and yeah. Combat experience helps.

...General Myers was a hand picked pussy

[Dionysos]

Originally Posted by elNastyAndy69

My question to the masses is this. Would you more likely support a person who has seen combat as opposed to someone who hasn't? Do you believe it neccessary to have exp on the battlefield in order to be able to make decisions when it comes to war?

Let me put it this way: your car is fucked up and you go to two friends to ask for advice. They give you two completely different solutions to the problem; one is a mechanic and the other just reads books about cars. Which one are you going to listen to?

Originally Posted by elNastyAndy69

Does anyone know if my role model Donald Rumsfield ignored advice from top generals? If so did any of those top generals serve in combat before?

It's kinda hard to make it to the status of 'general' without seeing combat at some point.

[elNastioBananaHando]

Originally Posted by Dionysos

It's kinda hard to make it to the status of 'general' without seeing combat at some point.

Did any of them give my role model Donny Rumsfield advice and did he ignore most of it?

[Dionysos]

Originally Posted by elNastyAndy69

Did any of them give my role model Donny Rumsfield advice and did he ignore most of it?

Yes, and yes.

[E-Nice]

Originally Posted by elNastyAndy69

Does anyone know if my role model Donald Rumsfield ignored advice from top generals? If so did any of those top generals serve in combat before?

Rumsfeld only started listening instead of dictating when things got real bad in 05.

In the run-up to the war he ignored advice from Gen.'s Shelton (old joint chief & Spec. forces), shinseki, Zinni (my old boss), Colin powell, fred franks, Barry McCaffrey to name a few. they are all 3 and 4 star and all are vietnam combat veterans. they are the brightest of military minds. Rumsfeld assembled them (excluding powell whom he distains)... was told his plan and reason for War were both weak ... and he disregarded.

Rumsfeld and bush prefered the flowery tails and scenarios presented by the iraq dissidents (chalabi & the gucci commandos) to that of America's best generals.


here's a little iraq incite for you
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_McCaffrey

[E-Nice]

Originally Posted by Dionysos

It's kinda hard to make it to the status of 'general' without seeing combat at some point.

for the most part but not all of them have seen the shit. also combat as seen from the air or sea is not really combat that leaves a negative impression on people.

[hepkatmama]

Originally Posted by elNastyAndy69

My question to the masses is this. Would you more likely support a person who has seen combat as opposed to someone who hasn't? Do you believe it neccessary to have exp on the battlefield in order to be able to make decisions when it comes to war?

the commander & chief of the nation's military should have experienced warfare firsthand or at least been in the military at some point.

http://www.mccainforpresident.org/

even better if they are an ex-pow.

[elNastioBananaHando]

anyone else have some insight to this?