1
   

Generation Chickenhawk

 
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Jul, 2005 08:12 am
Re: Generation Chickenhawk
rayban1 wrote:
Joe, you may have overlooked the real reason they are staying in college. They may believe as I do, that the real war for the heart and soul of this country will be waged in the classrooms of our universities...

Then it is indeed a happy coincidence that the "real war" is the one that doesn't involve any kind of physical danger. The College Republicans profiled in the Blumenthal article seem to be well-suited to that kind of warfare.

rayban1 wrote:
...expecially the ones that crank out the overeducated attorneys who make so much money they don't have to work and can spend all their time on A2K Laughing

I too am dismayed by Ticomaya's apparent lack of a solid work ethic.
0 Replies
 
jpinMilwaukee
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Jul, 2005 08:20 am
So is it the authors contention that everybody that supports the war should enlist and go off to fight, or just the "fresh-faced, nondescript white guys in blue suits, and slender blond girls in miniskirts and snug-fitting blazers?"

What about all the people with magnetic stickers on their cars? Are they chicken hawks too? What about all the people on this website who "Support our troops but not the war?" Should they have to enlist as well or are they just lying about supporting the troops?

This is just a stupid partisan talking point not worth the paper it was originally printed on.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Jul, 2005 08:44 am
It wasn't printed, JP, according to the link, it was web-based only. However, i do see your point. I might point out, however, that there are those here who oppose the war, who have nevertheless done their national service. Both Dys and I served in the Army, and we are both opposed to this war. I rather think we do qualify as having "paid our dues." I agree completely, though, that the article is tendentious, and likely intended to be so.
0 Replies
 
jpinMilwaukee
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Jul, 2005 08:53 am
Setanta wrote:
It wasn't printed, JP, according to the link, it was web-based only.


Which may make my statement even more accurate Smile


Setanta wrote:
However, i do see your point. I might point out, however, that there are those here who oppose the war, who have nevertheless done their national service. Both Dys and I served in the Army, and we are both opposed to this war. I rather think we do qualify as having "paid our dues." I agree completely, though, that the article is tendentious, and likely intended to be so.


I have no problem what so ever with opposing the war. I feel it is possible to oppose a war and support the troops. I also think it is possible to support a war and not have to fight in it.

My main beef was that this is just a stupid article written for the sole purpose of pointing out how stupid the "other side" really is. It serves no point other then more arguing and pointing fingers.
0 Replies
 
JustWonders
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Jul, 2005 08:55 am
DrewDad wrote:
JustWonders wrote:
Seems appropriate for this thread of handwringers and whiners.

<snip>

Or am I being silly?

You encouraging your relatives to enlist, JW?


They already did.
0 Replies
 
boomerang
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Jul, 2005 08:56 am
That paper from the war college was really interesting. My brother is an officer who identifies himself as a republican but his opinions are really very liberal on social issues. Reading this paper showed that he is not alone:

Quote:
One should not exaggerate the differences between the military and civilian society. Many civilians would classify themselves as conservative on a host of issues, and the political power of the religious right in recent years underscores the point. Conversely, the personal orientations of many service members are surprisingly liberal, especially now that women and minorities comprise such a large segment of the armed forces. The Triangle Institute's finding that the officer corps is "not quite as conservative as the general public" on social issues suggests the difficulty of applying broad ideological labels to any large and diverse group.


The paper makes very clear that defining political affiliation within the military with the same criteria we do among civilians is pretty foolish.

Interesting read. Thanks for the link!
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Jul, 2005 09:28 am
jpinMilwaukee wrote:
My main beef was that this is just a stupid article written for the sole purpose of pointing out how stupid the "other side" really is. It serves no point other then more arguing and pointing fingers.


I don't agree that it is a stupid article--i find the author rather adroit, in point of fact, in using language. And i also believe that there is a good deal of hypocricy to be found among supporters of war when they so often do not have to go into harm's way themselves. I do agree with you that it is highly partisan, and involves a large measure of "finger pointing." I cannot speak to the author's intent--partisanship so often blinds people that it is entirely possible that the author wrote this in good faith. It is also entirely possible that it is willfully tendentious, and a cynical exercise in poking one's opponents with a sharp stick.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Jul, 2005 09:57 am
Good points Set. Obviously, the author of the piece isn't stupid. I think, by the same token, the author of the piece had in mind a distinctly partisan exersize, and that "good faith" didn't enter into it much at all - the purpose was to "point fingers" and to jab and swipe at "the other side" - very calculatedly so. It isn't dialogue, it isn't objective analysis, its screed. Its button pushing - pushing one side's "I agree with that" buttons and the other side's "I disagree with that" buttons. Thats its purpose, and as far as that purpose goes, it was done well.
0 Replies
 
Fedral
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Jul, 2005 10:06 am
DrewDad wrote:
You encouraging your relatives to enlist, Fedral?


Almost EVERY male in my family and a few of the females have served, are serving or will be serving once they come 'of age'.

The military is a tradition in my family. I am the fourth generation military in my family (May go back further, but too much family history is lost.)

Our 5th generation is now serving and the first of the 6th generation will be enlisting in a few years. A few make a career out of it, but most serve and then leave for other pursuits. Many stay in the Reserves for a long time. Thats just the way our family is.

Technically, NO, no one in my family is 'encouraged' to enlist.
We each do so according to our personal beliefs and sense of duty.

"It is every citizens duty to stand between the barbarians and the gates of Rome"

Currently Serving:
United States Army (Active): 7
United States Army (Reserve/Guard): 5 (2 activated and serving now)
United States Air Force: 1 (My cousin just HAD to be different)
US Navy/Marines: You have GOT to be kidding
British Army (Active): 2
Royal Air Force: 1 (We laughed at the fact that BOTH sides of the family had a whacko with his head in the clouds)

To from pre WW One to date, we have lost 3 family members to death. We consider ourselves lucky in that more havent been lost.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Jul, 2005 11:43 am
Freedom never has been free, its cost always has been dear in both blood and treasure.


"It is the soldier, not the reporter, Who has given us freedom of the press.
It is the soldier, not the poet, Who has given us freedom of speech.
It is the soldier, not the organizer, Who has given us the freedom to demonstrate.
It is the soldier, Who salutes the flag, Who serves beneath the flag,
And whose coffin is draped by the flag, Who allows the protestor to burn the flag."
- Charles M. Province

"These are the times that try men's souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly: it is dearness only that gives everything its value."
- Thomas Paine

"Over the years, the United States has sent many of its fine young men and women into great peril to fight for freedom beyond our borders. The only amount of land we have ever asked for in return is enough to bury those that did not return."
-Collin Powell

"only the dead have seen the end of war"
- plato


It is natural, and right, to detest war. It is brave, and noble, to accept the burden of war when it is thrust upon you.
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Jul, 2005 11:59 am
Quote:

"It is the soldier, not the reporter, Who has given us freedom of the press.
It is the soldier, not the poet, Who has given us freedom of speech.
It is the soldier, not the organizer, Who has given us the freedom to demonstrate.
It is the soldier, Who salutes the flag, Who serves beneath the flag,
And whose coffin is draped by the flag, Who allows the protestor to burn the flag."


This is terribly wrong! Soldiers don't bring freedom. That is not their job.

Every nation from Ancient Egypt, to Imperial Rome, to the European Monarchies to the Islamic Empire... they have all had soldiers who pretty much do what soldiers do today. They follow the orders of the rulers of their society... sometime for good, and sometimes for ill... but solders don't bring freedom.

It is American citizens who have fought for, earned and defended freedom. They broke laws, defied authority and stood up for what they believed, often against the powerful in government.

Who are those brave souls to whom we owe so much. It is Thoreau who went to jail to oppose an injust war. It is Harriet Tubman who after escaping slavery risked her life to save others. It is Martin Luther King who kept peace to bring much needed change.

I am not saying the soldiers aren't needed. Their role to "provide for the common defense" is important and Constitutional.

But America is much more than its military. The writers, poets, demonstrators, philosophers, teachers and firefighters are what make America great! The courage of Medgar Evers is as great as any soldier, and his contribution was as well.

Soldiers are a part of America, and they have their role to play.

But soldiers don't bring freedom. Soldiers operate with the support of, and in service of the Americans who do.

http://www.historywiz.com/images/china/tanks.gif
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Jul, 2005 12:19 pm
I can pretty much agree with that, ebrown - however, I feel strongly as well that many, Americans and others, today fail, or refuse, to understand the reality, and necessity, of the war in which we currently are engaged. This war was brought to us, and it was brought to us long before - decades before - 9/11. The events of that day merely brought to focus the fact of the war, and stirred the nation finally to respond in appropriate manner. I think those who think otherwise are terribly wrong; deluded at best, treasonous at worst. Some - pperhaps most - of those opposed to this war indeed merely fail to grasp the need and justice of the cause, and object in good conscience, knowing no better; with them I have no quarrel, though I would prefer they could see what really is happening. Others - a minority, but a very vocal and visible minority - have nowhere near so honest an agenda, and serve to aid and embolden the enemy.
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Jul, 2005 12:34 pm
I couldn't disagree any stronger.

The war in Iraq (if that is what we are talking about) is not only unecessary, it is immoral. There is no "justice to the cause" in Iraq and their is no justification for the loss of life that occured because of the US invasion.

Worse is the use of the tragedy of 9/11 to justify it.

A core concept of Democracy is that the military... and military leaders... are subject to the values and will of the people. When enough Americans realize that the war is too costly and not justified by any reality... the war will end. Period.

As an American citizen opposed to the war, it is my duty to make this case to the American people. The military can't subjugate the beliefs of American citizens to further it's own goals. Rather American citizens have the power and the responsibility to tell the military ... "enough!"

This isn't Treason... it is Democracy.
0 Replies
 
rayban1
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Jul, 2005 01:31 pm
ebrown_p wrote:
I couldn't disagree any stronger.

The war in Iraq (if that is what we are talking about) is not only unecessary, it is immoral. There is no "justice to the cause" in Iraq and their is no justification for the loss of life that occured because of the US invasion.

Worse is the use of the tragedy of 9/11 to justify it.

A core concept of Democracy is that the military... and military leaders... are subject to the values and will of the people. When enough Americans realize that the war is too costly and not justified by any reality... the war will end. Period.

As an American citizen opposed to the war, it is my duty to make this case to the American people. The military can't subjugate the beliefs of American citizens to further it's own goals. Rather American citizens have the power and the responsibility to tell the military ... "enough!"

This isn't Treason... it is Democracy.


Your disagreement as a member of the minority is noted........it is my responsibility as a member of the majority to inform you that we are not persuaded by your argument......actually you seem not to have any credible argument. If you start to use intimidation as a tactic to force agreement then the majority has an obligation to deal with you forcibly

BTW........the military has no goals or objectives of it's own. The sole purpose of the military is to preserve and protect the interests of the citizens of the US as determined and so ordered by it's elected officials through the President of the US as CinC of the military. Period. Your perception that the military has any objectives of it's own is just flat wrong
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Jul, 2005 01:35 pm
If indeed you are a member of the "majority" Rayban, how do you explain the dwindling support for the Shrub's dirty little war? How do you explain that the support continues to dwindle despite and perhaps even because of his rah-rah antics at Fort Bragg?
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Jul, 2005 01:44 pm
It's a perceived decline. I know of no one who's views have actually changed. It's the media saying it has.
0 Replies
 
rayban1
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Jul, 2005 02:11 pm
Setanta wrote:
If indeed you are a member of the "majority" Rayban, how do you explain the dwindling support for the Shrub's dirty little war? How do you explain that the support continues to dwindle despite and perhaps even because of his rah-rah antics at Fort Bragg?


I agree with McG.......it is a perceived dwindling of support, contrived and reported as being so by the MSM. It's not Bush's dirty little war......it is our war and now I'm speaking as a Bush supporter because had I been in Bush's shoes I would have gone to war also and I don't have any ties to any corp, oil or otherwise. That's what Bush's critics don't understand about those of us who support him. You certainly have a right to be a vocal critic but please drop an reference to the action in Iraq being "Bush's dirty little war" because then it becomes a personal insult to me and all other Bush supporters.
0 Replies
 
JustWonders
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Jul, 2005 02:11 pm
Heck, the Dems love their polls, but I'm still waiting for one of them to figure out why they keep losing Smile
0 Replies
 
rayban1
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Jul, 2005 02:19 pm
Oh and BTW Setanta, since you have seen fit to declare that you have served let me also state that I have worn a military uniform for 20 years so I will not look kindly on any yahoo calling me a chicken hawk. When it comes to a hawk.........I am the real thing and you can put that in the bank. Cool
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Jul, 2005 02:31 pm
We were right about the last unecessary war.

Wouldn't it have been nice if America had just realized it sooner?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/01/2024 at 07:21:27