What is the definition of 'chickenhawk' to DUers.

[Dawgs]

Why the 'Chickenhawk' argument is un-American: Part I
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1465096/posts

The freepers are getting really defensive about it.

[Ian David]

1. They're all a bunch of "Yellow Elephants"

http://www.OperationYellowElephant.com

[SteppingRazor]

2. What a fallacious argument...

Here's the opening graph:

"Who is qualified to speak on matters of national security? According to the American left, only pacifists, military members who have served in combat and direct relatives of those slain in combat or in acts of terrorism. The rest of us -- about 80 percent of voters -- must simply sit by silently. Our opinions do not matter. You want disenfranchisement? Talk to the political left, which seeks to exclude the vast majority of the American populace from the national debate about foreign policy."

Is that really what we're saying? A chickenhawk is someone who calls for war, avidly extols the glories of war, but has never been to war himself.
That's who we have a problem with, not anyone who is not a peace activist, military, or family of soldiers who have been killed. Sheesh. How obtuse.

[Triana]

3. I STILL SAY...

...they need to put their butts where their mouths are (or in his/her case fingers).

If they SUPPORT war, then let them FIGHT in them. Enlist and GO!

Put up. Or shut up. Or get called a CHICKENHAWK. 'Cause that's what pro-war keyboard warriors are - chickenhawks.

[Sparkly]

4. Jonah Goldberg has something about this today.

Seems to be a new "talking point." (Warning: Puke alert.)
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/jonahgoldberg/jg20050817.shtml

Anybody who's been on the receiving end of the "chickenhawk" epithet knows what I'm getting at. Various definitions of chickenhawk are out there, but the gist - as if you didn't know - is "coward" or "unpatriotic hypocrite." The accusation is less an argument than an insult.

It's also a form of bullying. The intent is to say, "You have no right to support the war since you haven't served or signed up." It's a way to get supporters of the war in Iraq, the war on terror, or the president simply to shut up.

[samdogmom]

5. If the shoe fits...

They may not like what they're called, but how can they claim to be anything other than a Chickenhawk if they talk up war but refuse to serve?

Calling someone a Chickenhawk is not BULLYING, it's simply calling a spade a spade!

[MsTryska]

19. "Anybody who's been

on the receiving end of the "chickenhawk" epithet knows what I'm getting at."



hmmm...never in my life have i been called a chickenhawk.

strange, isn't it?

[sinkingfeeling]

6. Not my definition of 'chickenhawk'. It is one who loves war and

constantly talks about the nobility and virtues of war. It is someone who is in a position to EXECUTE or DECLARE war, but who also, has never served in the military nor experienced it.

I reserve the title 'chickenhawk' to political types: senators, reps, and executive branch. All the rest of the war cheerleaders who will not fight or join the military are simply cowards!

Edit for spelling

[Armstead]

7. A chickenhawk supports war, but not in a personal sense

A healthy American who is young enough to enlist, who also loudly advocates for war and "supports the troops" but is not willing to become one by enlisting is a chickenhawk....Or a "haek" who is older and had a chance to serve previously, but chose not to.

A plain old chicken is someone who supports the war but doesn't sign up, but who also at least keeps their mouth shut instead of posturing.

[stanwyck]

15. Yes. They're known by their squawk.

They have a very old Hollywood movie version of the glory of war. And no understanding of the sacrifice or horror. And they always have "other priorities" than enlisting.
Secretly, they believe they're "above" military service.
They're not.
But their loud warrior talk lets them be soldiers surrogates. They get to act all manly -- without pain. In addition, they feel inferior. They're riddled with self doubts. So. They over compensate with a lot of loud talk.
They're afraid of being found out.
They try to hide under macho blather.
The squawks of the chickenhawks. You can hear them now on hateradio.

[rndmprsn]

8. Chickenhawk (politics) From Wikipedia

Chickenhawk (politics)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

For other uses, see Chickenhawk (disambiguation)

Chickenhawk is an epithet used in United States politics to criticize a politician, bureaucrat, or commentator who votes for war, supports war, commands a war, or develops war policy, but has not personally served in the military, especially one who opted out of a previous war on dubious grounds. Generally, it is not a label applied to essentially "dovish" leaders who support defensive wars, "humanitarian interventions," or UN operations.

The term is generally used in the ad hominem circumstantial context: since a supposed "chickenhawk" has not served in war, the implication is that the person is morally ill-equipped to support a war. On the contrary, implication is that any person who has served in a war is morally better-equipped to make decisions about war.

[MsTryska]

20. i think this definition errs

in bringing "morality" into it.


it has nothing to do with whether you have the morals and ethic to fight a war - but rather whether you have the experience to fight a war.

in other words - don't let your mouth write a check your ass can't cash.

[gaspee]

9. And here I always thought...

A chickenhawk was an older man who likedstwinks. Or a sexual predator of young boys.

I kind of like the new definition, too. It fits, doens't it? Predator of boys?

I always laugh when I hear chickenhawk because I think of the more traditional meaning.

wikipedia

[Jaja]

10. Foghorn Leghorn

Until recently, I thought of "chickenhawk" as meaning "Henry, the small bird who tries to eat chickens" or "a john who prefers little boys". Once you guys and several others started using it in the sense of "a pro-war person who has not/does not/will not actually go to war", I have thought it was a meaningful way to refer to these persons. How unfortunate for them that the freepers didn't think of it first.

[Midlodemocrat]

11. Personally, I think a chickenhawk

is someone who is willing to send another person's child into the line of fire, but unwilling to send themselves or their own.

I have a friend who recently told me that the military would be great for her son, but there is a war on. It is such a delight living here in freeperville.

[vicman]

12. This "argument" has

making the rounds for several weeks now, from various right-wing sources. It's amazing how they all manage to parrot the talking points exactly, in lockstep. This obviously was crafted in the bowels of the RNC, possibly even given a final edit by KKKarl Rove himself. Civilian control of the military has been incredibly effective in this country since its inception. It's a good idea, but this "chickenhawk" phoenomenon is a new thing in our history. For the first time, a cabal of very powerful individuals who have a common history of actively avoiding and even disdaining military service, have decided to use the U.S. military as an active tool of their diplomacy and desire for hegemony in world affairs. The chickenhawk argument exists because this administration has created it.

Civilian leaders in the past have tended to very deliberately decide upon war as a last resort (rightly or wrongly, as only history can show). The waging of war they left mostly to military leaders once clear goals had been set (Korea and Vietnam offer glaring reminders of the inevitable folly that ensues when this simple axiom is ignored). The chickenhawks' lack of true understanding of the effect of war on those consigned to fight it has become important because of their clearly stated intention of starting wars as the essential element of their foreign policy. Preemptive strikes, etc...

Having decided upon war prior to any other option (just read PNAC and listen to the repeated pronouncements of the neo-con whistle-asses if you doubt me) they open themselves to horrendous folly, which we are experiencing daily in their execution of their first war of choice (an opportunity they'd been salivating over for years). I mean, torture makes perfect sense to these guys because they have only their own experience to fall back on. They know for a fact that they personally would scream like little girls the first instant even one hair on their ball sac was ruffled and answer truthfully more questions than their torturer even asked. So it must work for everyone, right? The Geneva conventions had to be crafted by knotheads who hadn't the benefit of the education the neo-cons had. You see where all this leads.

Chickenhawks have always been with us, this is just the first time they've weilded such immense power to get thousands of real people murdered in the name of their ideals(delusions? - I personally think so in this case).

This RNC talking point simply allows them to play the victim and once again evade accountability for their decisions. And that's what the modern GOP is all about, and little else...

[HughBeaumont]

13. Not this utter TWAT Shapiro again . . .

Ben, you're a 22-year-old Reaganite who doesn't know shit about shit. Clinton is no chickenhawk because he declared war on NO ONE and used diplomacy when it was called for. Bush and Cheney look for excuses for war every single MONTH. Constant war, whether we need it or not. No war = bad for business. You wouldn't want to be "bad for business", would you? So I guess your heroes over at PNAC were wrong about his foreign policy being "adrift"?

But what REALLY steamed me was this nugget from a pile of shit in that thread who doesn't even deserve mention -

I would say that Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh, both who have not served, understand national security more than people like John Kerry and Charlie Wrangel, both who did serve.

FUCK. YOU. FUCK YOU UP YOUR STUPID ASS for saying stupid shit like that, you assvacuum. Those two fat giant-jawed fucks wouldn't last three WEEKS in a boot camp, let alone be a human target in a Swift Boat. Assboil and the Human Chin are overpaid, chickenshit Bushbot parrots who, just like that piece of shit, are dazzled by the glamour and action-packed spectacle of war no matter if it's just or not. National Security will never be achieved by attacking sovereign nations and killing their men, women and children and babies.

And at least spell the guy's NAME right.

[punpirate]

14. Despite attempts to deflect the usage of the term...

... a chickenhawk is a person who never had to put his own ass on the line, but still thinks he's entitled to promote, plan or initiate war for political or economic gain. Cheney is the perfect example.

Most, if not all, of such people are so ignorant and delusional about the consequences of war that they believe their own lies about war.

Here's the prevailing view of the chickenhawk about the military, as attributed to Henry Kissinger in Woodward and Bernstein's Final Days: "Military men are just dumb, stupid animals to be used as pawns in foreign policy."

Of course, none dare say that in public, but it's what they think, never having been military men themselves. The chickenhawk is the penultimate chauvinist, the most elite of elitists. They believe other people should die for their ideas, their ambitions.

[Sapphire Blue]

16. Symbolman explains is so well...

"Chickenhawks - Hall of Shame" flash video: http://www.symbolman.com/chickenhawks.html

[Ernesto]

21. BRAVO!!!! 3 Thumbs up!

Thanks for a great little linc Sapphire Blue!
I will be sending it on to friends.

[Dawgs]

17. Thank you...

The best definition I've seen is this one-->

"a chickenhawk is a person who never had to put his own ass on the line, but still thinks he's entitled to promote, plan or initiate war for political or economic gain."

[KarenInMA]

18. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

"I would say that Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh, both who have not served, understand national security more than people like John Kerry and Charlie Wrangel,"

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1465096/posts