Generation Chickenhawk

Being a College Republican allows them to do both. It is warfare by other, much safer means."

I suppose thats why over 64% of military officers (Drawn from those very Colleges) identify themselves as Republicans, 17% identify themselves as Independents and only 8% claim to be Democrats.

Looks to me as if the numbers speak for themselves as to exactly WHOM is hiding under mommy and daddys bed.

Lets see ... 64 / 8 = 8 ... That means the Republicans whom you mock so much are EIGHT times more likely to join up to defend your rights and freedoms as their Democratic brethren.

So lets not start pointing at the mote in your brothers eye while ignoring the beam in your own.

One would hope that those who "support the war" would do so by doing more than trying to become good little taxpayers. I would assume that one who "supports the war" would enlist, or would encourage one's children/grandchildren enlist.

I didn't realize that a college education was a prerequisite to being a commissioned officer in the US military.

A couple of points:

1. I don't mock the Republicans. They mock themselves; I merely point it out when it happens.

2. Even according to your statistics, one cannot conclude that Republicans are EIGHT times more likely to join up than are Democrats. About the only thing that can be concluded from those statistics is that officers are eight times more likely to identify themselves as Republicans than as Democrats when asked by pollsters to state a party affiliation.

3. I would imagine that Republicans also outnumber avowed pacifists in the military, but then most avowed pacifists aren't vocal supporters of the war in Iraq. It is, therefore, rather unremarkable that one does not encounter a large number of pacifists in the military. On the other hand, it is curious that vocal supporters of the war, all eligible to serve in the military, are so eager to let others serve in their places. But then perhaps they're simply following the advice of John Bolton, who also didn't want to die in some rice paddy when offered the chance to fight in a war that he supported.

Just a couple nit-picky, only tangentially related points:

Enlisting, whether in the Guard or the Regular Army, was a fairly good way of keeping oneself out of Vietnam if one so chose. Regular Army enlistees generally had options for assignment to non-combat billets, while draftees went where they were sent, and most of them were sent to places enlistees chose not to go.

The Real Facts About Service in Vietnam
by James Dunnigan
February 17, 2004

The current presidential campaign in the United States is bringing back the debate over "who served" (and who didn't) during the Vietnam war. During that conflict (1965-72), 8.7 million Americans served in the military. About a third of these spent some time in Vietnam. But only about twelve percent of those sent to Vietnam were in combat. Put another way, only about three percent of those who served in the military during the Vietnam war were in combat. And then there was the draft. Some 2.2 million men were drafted during the Vietnam war, to serve for two years. But most of those who served in Vietnam were volunteers. Of course, many men volunteered to avoid the draft and getting put in the infantry. This was the case even before the Vietnam war. Infantry duty is a rough business even in peace time.

There were over a million men becoming eligible for the draft each year during the 1960s, but the most that were drafted in any one year (1968) was 334,000. There were plenty of opportunities to a deferment from the draft and avoid service. Minor physical problems would often do it. If you had kids, that would often work.

If you had a college education, and were drafted, your chances of ending up in the infantry (unless you volunteered for it) were very low. The army always had lots of technical and administrative jobs for educated draftees. If you wanted to absolutely avoid the chance of combat in Vietnam, you could enlist in the air force. This meant you would have to serve three years. There was a slight chance you might get a job as a crewman aboard a B-52 bomber (of which a few were shot down) or in an air force security unit pulling guard duty in a Vietnam air base (there were some casualties here.) Military pilots took a lot of casualties, but they were nearly all officers, and volunteers. But, generally, a college grad had little to fear from the military in the 1960s unless they volunteered for combat ...


... Over 90 percent of those who served in the military during the Vietnam war were not in any particular danger. Avoiding service to "save your life" was a myth. Anyone who wanted to avoid danger, and many did, simply joined the navy or air force (and didn't volunteer for flight school), or volunteered for the army on condition that they get a certain non-combat job (the army encouraged this to get qualified volunteers for those positions.) A college grad who enlisted was almost certain to get a safe non-combat kind of job, especially if he could type. This worked for former vice president Al Gore.

Those who avoided service altogether simply didn't want to be bothered with what most Americans then, and now, call "the service." They call it that for a reason. Being in the military for two years, or four, is often uncomfortable. During Vietnam, it could also be painful, and fatal. But everyone understood that, if no one served, we all would lose, whether there was a war going on or not.

SO, what's the real issue here?

That we don't live in a socialistic utopia?

I disagree with Blumenthals opinion peice and I believe it to be filled with lies and exagerrations.

Better a chickenhawk though, than a whiny dove.

It was a prerequisite when I was in the service and I doubt it has changed. The service wants college graduates in the Officer Corps. Heck, for higher promotions these days even NON COMMISIONED Officers (Master Sergeants, Sergeant Majors) are required to have a degree.

When you refer to these young people (Who are admirable in the fact that they are PARTICIPATING in the process.) as 'Chickenhawks' because they haven't quit college to join the military that is mocking without cause.

And yet, Democrats seem to CLAIM that they'support our troops', they just cant be bothered to associate with them nor to join their ranks.

Why don't we see the path that these young people take once they LEAVE the college. How do you know many of them aren't in the ROTC program and will be in the military after they graduate? How do you know that some of the supporters of the war AREN'T planning a career or at least a term of service in the Armed Forces once they graduate?

You DON'T, you are content to just mock them without knowing them because their beliefs don't march in lockstep (Thats a military term meaning marching together ) with YOUR opinions.

I always thought better of you than this joe, although we have not always agreed on many topics, I ALWAYS respected your opinions as beautifully written, intelligently thought out and somewhat sarcastic and irreverent.

This one however just seems petty and spiteful. Just my opinion...

"In interviews, more than a dozen conventiongoers explained why it is important that they stay on campus while other, less fortunate people their age wage a bloody war in Iraq. They strongly support the war, they told me, but they also want to enjoy college life and pursue interesting careers. Being a College Republican allows them to do both. It is warfare by other, much safer means."

For the rest of the story, click here.

Got this in email Seems appropriate for this thread of handwringers and whiners.
----------------------------------------------------------

We all know about Chickenhawks - those people who support war but aren't willing to walk down to the recruiter's office and sign up! The cowards. How dare someone want somebody else to do the dirty work for them! Well, they're not alone! Here is a list of other cowards and their hypocracy.

ChickenCops - People who call 911 expecting the police to protect them when they're too scared to join the force themselves!!! This can also apply to the unreasonable request that someone douse the flames engulfing your house if you've never shared a seat with a dalmation on the way to a 3 alarm inferno yourself.

ChickenJanitors - People who expect their toilets to be clean but can't lower themselves to quit their high paying jobs to do it!

ChickenPOTUS - Individuals who kvetch about the president and don't have the fortitude to run for the office themselves!

ChickenCarnivores - Cowards who are too scared to raise and slaughter their own animals yet expect steak / chicken / pork for dinner.

ChickenLegals - Unsavory persons who think they have the right to sue others even though they themselves cannot bring themselves to go to law school.

ChickenG@m3rs - Luddites who think they should be allowed to play the latest Grand Theft Auto without actually learning to program a computer.

ChickenMcYourWays - Those who want fries with that, but can't be bothered to put on a paper hat and a name tag and do it themselves.

ChickenChairtables - People who complain about the plight of the poor who have never forced their kids to live in a cardboard box.

ChickenJailers - Not willing to put your newborn in the klink? Then how can you say it's fair to put serial rapists in there?

When will people learn that you cannot support something you wouldn't make your grandmother do at gunpoint? When will these people learn perspective?????

Or am I being silly?

Seems appropriate for this thread of handwringers and whiners.

<snip>

Or am I being silly?