Talk:Chickenhawk/Archive1

This is an archive page, last updated 3 November 2023. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:  , (new)(back)

I am so proud of my new baby. human^{be in} 15:13, 10 June 2007 (CDT)

Yes, it's a fine specimen.

But please for to parse this out for me,"Either trait on its own is perfectly reasonable, but taken together, they indicate a person with a dangerous tendency to recommend that other people's lives be risked their beliefs in a way that they never risked their own." Thank you, ~~ C®acker 15:51, 10 June 2007 (CDT)

Thanks for asking. One, there a typo. it should say "...lives be risked for their beliefs..." Two, it is unclear, I felt that as I wrote it. It might need to be two sentences. The problem is that when I use "their", there are two potential antecedents - the chickenhawk(s), and the "other people" whose lives are being risked. I will try to make it clearer (and fix the typo!) human^{be in} 16:13, 10 June 2007 (CDT)

Tell the truth..you wrote this high.--PalMD^{-yada yada} 16:47, 10 June 2007 (CDT)BTW, good article.

Well, I'll grant that I was hammered when I scribbled a note to self to write it, along with a few other things, but the actual research and typing was done in the clear, cold, sober light of day. It doesn't show, does it? human^{be in} 17:00, 10 June 2007 (CDT)

Heh, Robledo rewrote most of it, cleared it up a bit. At least he kept three of my "the"s, an "any" and several "of"s! If anybody needs indefinite articles for their articles, I have a high quality supply... human^{be in} 18:28, 10 June 2007 (CDT)

Rewrote? I merely played George Martin to your Lennon & McCartney. Like I said, good stuff, H. ;) In other news, have you seen the ding-dong battle they've having on CP re. Mormons as a recognised branch of Christianity? Glorious... XD --Robledo 18:45, 10 June 2007 (CDT)

Well, I have no choice but to take that as a high compliment! human^{be in} 19:32, 10 June 2007 (CDT)

I wonder if I should try a poll at CP? How many Chickenhawks do you think there are? Not that many of them have highlighted their military background (if any). Has anyone noted that CP has an odd fixation with World War II?--Franklin 18:48, 10 June 2007 (CDT)

That's bekause, as we all know, in WW2 the glorious demokratic USA led the world to viktory against the utterly evil forces of worldwide faskism. Also, bakk then, men were men and girls were girls, and everyone knew their plake - gays in the kloset and non-whites out of sight. Jazz ruined all this by enkouraging heroin use and promiskuity. human^{be in} 19:31, 10 June 2007 (CDT)

The only clear veteran of military service over there that i know of is Karajou.--PalMD^{-yada yada} 19:43, 10 June 2007 (CDT)

We should probably undo the changes to Lieberman, Libby, Wolfowitz, and Perle. Unless we call the others "those christian dudes." Otherwise, it seems kinda like anti-semitism. I really don't see how them being jewish is important. Thunderkatz 08:34, 9 July 2007 (CDT)

Done and done. ollïegrïnd 08:43, 9 July 2007 (CDT)

Thanks dude. Thunderkatz 08:43, 9 July 2007 (CDT)

A good article and links well with the new Iraq War one.--Graham 05:58, 17 September 2007 (EDT)

Insignia

I quite like the chickenhawk insignia. If nobody has any objections I'll start copying it onto all the politicians pages. --Bob^{bing up and down} 07:37, 5 September 2007 (CDT)

If you really want me to I'll try asking around to see if I can get 1. the original hi-rez version and 2. more explicit permissions to use it. Since it was created "in my neck of the woods" I might be able to find the "artiste". human^{be in} 14:17, 5 September 2007 (CDT)

Well, I think that would be nice. Actually I've already copied it to the other pages.--Bob^{bing up and down} 14:19, 5 September 2007 (CDT)

Well, that one is good enough for our use, and putting on the chickenhawks' pages makes sense. But I'll ask around, there has to be one good enough for T-shirts somewhere. human^{be in} 14:27, 5 September 2007 (CDT)

The text presently says: They so proudly wear this insignia. What about "Awarded by Rational Wiki for services below and beneath the call of duty." or something of that nature? Not that I dislike the present one. Just thinking out loud.--Bob^{bing up and down} 14:31, 5 September 2007 (CDT)

On the ch article that's a good caption, but on individuals' articles, maybe it should say "Awarded the title of Chickenhawk by the NH Gazette". We didn't invent the term or do the work, so it's fairer to give credit where credit is due. Or mix our wordings, I like the "services below..." part. human^{be in} 14:41, 5 September 2007 (CDT)

Ah right. I thought it was our invention. I obviously agree that we shouldn't claim credit which is not ours.--Bob^{bing up and down} 03:34, 6 September 2007 (CDT)

Clinton & Rumsfeld

I agree with both of them being removed. Bill Clinton doesn't fit the definition (as stated at the beginning of the article) amd Rummy did serve. --Edgerunner⁷⁶ 13:09, 11 December 2007 (EST)

Reagan

I have the impression that Ronald Reagan has come and gone as well. Does he qualify?--Bob^{bing up} 13:30, 11 December 2007 (EST)

I vote for him to be included --Edgerunner⁷⁶ 13:33, 11 December 2007 (EST)

I'm not a Regan expert. Did he serve?--Bob^{bing up} 13:45, 11 December 2007 (EST)

He made propaganda films. Does that count? --Edgerunner⁷⁶ 14:08, 11 December 2007 (EST)

(EC) No. He "wore the uniform", but it was to make recruitment films for the Army. human 14:08, 11 December 2007 (EST)

As far as I'm concerned, if you're in the army, you're in the army, whether you're at the front getting shot at, making propaganda movies, or doing kitchen duty. They fill necessary functions each in their way, and besides, trying to distinguish between who's a "real" soldier and who's not could get sort of messy. --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 14:35, 14 December 2007 (EST)

_:And Al Gore was an Army journalist. He also supported the Gulf War. Ronald Reagan served in World War II. Secondly, when did Reagan agressively pursue war, and I'll say Kosovo before you say Grenada. GettingItRight 22:06, 12 December 2007 (EST)

Looking at our "Chickenhawk" definitions here I see that we have Aggressive support for military force as a primary instrument of foreign policy, I think that would rule out Gore, (though I'm not from the USA so I could be wrong). What was Regan's position?--Bob^{bing up} 12:49, 14 December 2007 (EST)

Um... you are aware that Ronald Reagan was never actually in the Armed Forces, right? He spent WW2 making movies. He _remembered_ being in the military in WW2, but that was probably just the Alzheimer's talking. Get It Right. --Gulik 15:01, 14 December 2007 (EST)

There seems to be some debate about that above.--Bob^{bing up} 15:05, 14 December 2007 (EST)

Apparently, he was made a Major. Or maybe that was just a "post" and not a real "rank"? --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 15:07, 14 December 2007 (EST)

Has he posted his letter of appointment? Was it subject to peer review?--Bob^{bing up} 15:12, 14 December 2007 (EST)

I doubt it. We'd better write the US Army and ask if they followed procedure when they promoted him. --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 15:15, 14 December 2007 (EST)

Sounds like a challenge for User:Order at CP.--Bob^{bing up} 15:18, 14 December 2007 (EST)

Ok, I was wrong. But he never saw a battle that wasn't rear-projected on a screen, so I sort of think my point stands, or at least totters. --Gulik 15:10, 14 December 2007 (EST)

Ronald Reagan

Include

• --Edgerunner⁷⁶ 12:44, 14 December 2007 (EST)

"We begin bombing in five minutes." --Gulik 15:03, 14 December 2007 (EST)

To be fair, that was a (completely frightening and tasteless) joke he made when he thought the cameras weren't rolling. Researcher 15:04, 14 December 2007 (EST)

Anyone here who was over the age of ten during the Reagan Years who thought we'd make it this far without a nuclear war? As for Reagan's military ventures--the US didn't directly attack other countries much, but we certainly helped some of the worst scum on Earth. Somoza, Marcos, the Contras, Duvalier, Saddam Hussein... --Gulik 15:08, 14 December 2007 (EST)

I'll be honest...he left office when I was 6. All I remember was jelly beans. (I've since learned about how freaking crazy he was, and personally consider him one of the worst presidents of the century. But I also want to be fair.) Researcher 15:11, 14 December 2007 (EST)

• Hawk, yes, Reagan was a classic cold war hawk. Chicken, yes, did not serve in conflict when he could have. human 15:23, 14 December 2007 (EST)

Don't include

AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 14:35, 14 December 2007 (EST)
Researcher 14:46, 14 December 2007 (EST) Honestly, while I don't consider him as having been in the military, the only military action he sponsored during his presidency (AFAIK) was the invasion of Grenada, which shouldn't count. (He did support Vietnam, but only vocally after it was already over.)

Does helping to keep the world on the edge of nuclear annihilation count as aggression? Does proxy fighting, like supporting the Contras in Nicaragua and other nasty actions in Central America? PFoster 16:22, 14 December 2007 (EST)

If I'm not mistaken, the fighting in Nicaragua was already on-going. As for keeping the world on the edge of nuclear annihilation--actually, since he wanted to undo the ABM treaty and build an American ballistic missile shield, thus destabilizing all of the work that previous administrations had done to make MAD a reality, so yeah, I'll give you that one. I still think overall that his inclusion is a bit weak compared to Rush or Bush, though. Researcher 16:27, 14 December 2007 (EST)

One issue is that the term came into use long after Reagan was out of office, to apply to the current batch of, well, hawkish non-servers. So one could argue that including Reagan is anachronistic. I wish the ole vet at the New Hampshire Gazette would get the database back up on their website. human 16:32, 14 December 2007 (EST)

DickTurpis. A little weak on both the chicken and the hawk parts. Just a bit too much of a stretch. There are so many better examples, why water down the list with him?

PFoster 12:49, 14 December 2007 (EST) - Changing my vote because of the argument re: the term was invented long after Reagan to refer to attitudes towards the War on Terror [sic]. So RR was a hawk, was a chicken, but could not have been a chickenhawk. PFoster 17:12, 14 December 2007 (EST)

Abstain

--Bob^{bing up} 12:51, 14 December 2007 (EST)

• Include only if Clinton is included, since they were both about equally hawkish and there seem to be too many people who think Clinton should be excluded on some dubious grounds that repeatedly using military force against Serbia and Iraq and nearly invading Haiti doesn't make one a hawk. If it doesn't, neither does invading Grenada and sending U.S. troops to Lebanon. Secret Squirrel 13:58, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

Definition

Thought I'd dig out the original definition: "A chickenhawk is A) a famous person who B) supports the CURRENT wars but C) never served in the military." from here (watch out, the wayback machine loads slowly). This is just for clarity, obviously we are free to do as we wish with the term. However, it might be cool if we mirror (copy, CP-style) the old NHG version in a sub-article, until they get it back up on their site. human 16:40, 14 December 2007 (EST)

Some more from same page:

“” This is modern politics, not ancient history. If we did include past presidents, the first chickenhawk on the list would probably be FDR, who presided over WWII without any personal military background (he had polio) but not Harry Truman, who served in the Army in WWI. If we did delve into ancient history, prominent chickenhawks would include John Wayne - who loved wars but never served - and Ronald Reagan - who also loved wars but also made movies during WWII (uniform notwithstanding). Ditto Sylvester Stallone and Bruce Willis.

human 16:42, 14 December 2007 (EST)

and news

The NHG site just got updated minutes ago with some discussion of an attempt to get the database back up: main page.

I just spoke to the editor there, and he is quite thrilled at my suggestion of copying the "wayback machine" version from 2005 over here. So I guess I've got my work cut out for me... this won't affect our article except that I'll put a link on it, and put his old stuff in sub-articles. human 17:27, 14 December 2007 (EST)

Clinton again?

• I believe that the idea that Clinton was not sufficiently hawkish to be a chickenhawk was agreed upon by consensus. Also, I removed the "only" in the heading about countries ruled only by those with military experience -- I don't think there's ever been a country that was a military dictatorship throughout its entire history. Therefore Pakistan remains on the list, and I added Libya as well. EVDebs 01:55, 25 January 2008 (EST)

Debs, I did not put Clinton in the "prominent chickenhawk" category - I put him in the "Commanders-In-Chief who have led Wars, but never fought in a War" category, which is emphatically and undeniably the case. Bubba never fought in a war, and he led the country into war in Kosovo - as well as armed strikes re: Bosnia in 1995 and Iraq over arms inspectors, both acts of war. That might or might not make him a textbook Chickenhawk - I agree that there could be some debate on that - but there's no doubt he fits in the category as described. If you don't want this article to reflect that reality, then the whole category should go.PFoster 09:58, 25 January 2008 (EST)

Yeah, that section is odd, but so what? No harm in having it, as long as it's accurate. But surely there are more leaders who qualify? There were a zillion countries in Gulf War One (the video game), and quite a few in GW2 (the occupation). Surely some of their leaders didn't serve? And that's just a start. human 10:26, 25 January 2008 (EST)

If I may add my three cents (buy two, get one free) I think the whole section should go. Part of being a world leader is handling wartime situations, and as no country that I know of has a military service clause, just about every world leader could fit into this cat. SirChuckB^{El...ipses are Cool...} 10:29, 25 January 2008 (EST)

Good point... human 10:34, 25 January 2008 (EST)

Section removed. Now, about the "countries ruled by people with military experience." Lots of countries are - EVERYONE in Israel (except some Orthodox Jews) has military experience; Putin was in the army, I believe; there are tonnes more examples. I'm imagining that whoever wrote that meant something like "countries ruled by the military," no? - and since this article is about a specific American historical/social category, I think that list should go to. Yes? PFoster 11:16, 25 January 2008 (EST)

I concur.... Waste It SirChuckB^{El...ipses are Cool...} 11:21, 25 January 2008 (EST)

interesting

interesting how all the Chickenhawk's are all Republicans. Shows a lot how Republicans don't care about fighting for America.--Bobby 16:00, 12 July 2008 (EDT)

That's not quite fair.... To be a chickenhawk, you have to specifically root for war but not serve. There are a lot of Draft Dodgers (legal and illegal) in the Democratic party, but in general, Democrats tend to be against war.. which is why most of the people listed as Chickenhawks are Republican.... Democrat would be..... chickendoves? SirChuckB^{El...ipses are Cool...} 16:26, 12 July 2008 (EDT)

It's not about political parties and cowardice, it's about partisanship, hypocrisy, and the aura of being a warrior. Sure, in the USA there are some true Pacifists that tend to be Democrats, Independents, etcetera ... anything not Republican, but Dems in general wouldn't be all that worked up about Iraq if it were a Dem in office rather than GWB, a man they despise. Clinton sent the military out on many missions (over 30, i read) and altho wag-the-dog jokes were in vogue, very few Dems were upset.

Most Americans would (minus the partisanship) support war as long as it could be decisively won in short order. After that, parents, especially mothers, worry that their own offspring will get involved, and they are right. Just about every teenage male feels at least a little tug to follow the adventure, whether he admits it or not, and some join, giving several reasons that sound valid, but are mostly just rationalizations. It takes longer for Republicans to become disillusioned with war, but most do eventually, the more the war drags on.

If Sen. Charles Rangel and 2 or 3 of his cronies look like they might have some success instituting a natiowide draft, many fewer people would be agnostic on the war. Then war would no longer be way down the list of voters' concerns.

-- Rem^Beau 21:45, 12 July 2008 (EDT)

Apropos of nothing, for the last half dozen or so years, I keep observing that we don't "look" like a nation at war - at least here, on the ground. No sacrifice for most people, no shortages, no tax to pay for it, just a bunch of poor peoples' kids dying, and being buried almost in secret. Empire was never managed so well, at least from a PR perspective. (from a reality perspective, we're doing a lousy job!) ħuman 22:07, 12 July 2008 (EDT)

I have to disagree with you on that... Many democrats (and more than a few Republicans) criticized Clinton heavily for the bombing of Iraq the night before his Impeachment hearings. A lot of people called attention to the so called Wag the Dog strategy. However, most of the missions Clinton sent troops into (Bosnia, Kosovo, Etc) were on peace keeping mission or genocide stopping missions. Clinton never sent the troops into a prolonged engagement and none of his actions have anywhere near the body count as Iraq does now. My opposition to the Iraq war has nothing to do with GW Bush, it has to do with being honest and intelligent. We were lied to about the WMDs, we were lied to about being greeted as liberators, and we were lied to about needing to "stay the course." As for some of your other points, the length of war has nothing to do with it. I was against the war in Iraq when it looked like it'd only take a few weeks, and I'm still against it now. SirChuckB^{El...ipses are Cool...} 01:41, 13 July 2008 (EDT)

I still have the candles with foil reflectors from the "protest held 'round the world" just before the US attacked Iraq without provocation. Lies, indeed. All lies. ħuman 02:05, 13 July 2008 (EDT)

How do you all feel about the draft -- should it become law?

Human -- Interesting. It is definitely true we don't look like a nation at war. Would we be better off if we did? I don't know how we'd pull that off. It is doubtful we'd ever have the atmosphere (rationing, common sacrifice, etc) of WWII without actually being involved in a war of that scale. But i do think Machiavelli was wrong when he made the point that hitting folks in the wallet is the one thing that people won't put up with.

Maybe they didn't have withholding tax in his day; US taxpayers don't feel the pain inflicted by huge govt outlays -- we don't seem to care about the amount withheld and we're inured to big, meaningless numbers. We'd be better of if we had to actually send the full tax amount on 15 April each year, don't you think?

Save that tinfoil -- i make hats out of it. (You can keep the candles; they aren't worth the candle.)

SirChuckB -- I have no reason to doubt your sincerity when you say that you, personally, weren't influenced in your opposition to the war because of GWB. I was speaking in general terms what i have observed: a high correlation of those that were anti-Bush before 9/11 with those that were anti-Iraq-War from the start.

I'm referring to the early days when even solid Dems were in favor of it, and made statements regarding the imminent danger. (Imminent is my word, i'm not sure anybody actually used that term.) On the length of war, i agree that one factor was, "Clinton never sent the troops into a prolonged engagement", but i disagree that, "the length of war has nothing to do with it". Those two perceptions seem in conflict to me.

-- Rem^Beau 13:52, 13 July 2008 (EDT)

What really bugs me about the Iraq war is that I could see the whole "Weapons of Mass Destruction! Mushroom Clouds!@ PAnIC! INVADE NOW!!!!!" for the load of bullshit it was from the start. Which apparently means that I'm smarter than everyone in Washington DC. Which is mighty cold comfort. --Gulik 16:06, 13 July 2008 (EDT)

Who are you really -- NostraDamus? I have to admit that, altho i was never in favor of going to war, i did believe there were WMDs. That's in spite of the fact that i already had a healthy distrust of govt at all levels. (I did, however, anticipate that they would all pitch in to screw up in the Katrina situation, and i was dead on in that fiasco.)

So in spite of NY Times articles that believed in WMDs (and they would as soon spit on Bush as look at him), you knew better? You HAVE to divulge how you knew. I know others that say they knew all along, but none could explain HOW they knew.

Also, tell me how things will end up in Iraq, and what would constitute failure, and what would constitute success. (And don't ask me to cross your palms with gold so that you can think clearly. I'm fresh out.)

-- Rem^Beau 17:30, 13 July 2008 (EDT)

Rem - since you asked me why I was right about Iraq:

(Replying to Rem's questions directly above.)

Ok... To start with, the fact that Israel (a country not known for letting threats to its safety fester) seemed totally unconcerned by Hussein's government was an early bullshit ping. BushCo's claiming to have 'proof' that they knew where the Weapons were, but refusing to give that 'proof' to the UN inspectors on the ground was a big one as well.

More cynically, there was the simple fact that Saddam's having Weapons or not really didn't matter. If he did have Weapons, and was idiotic enough to dare use them against any target the US actually cared about, his country would be reduced to a radioactive parking lot. I knew it, he knew it, and the whole world knew it. And despite all the "Saddam is a FOAMING MADMAN!!@!!" memes I saw being merrily tossed around before the invasion, he was a) a secular dictator, not one of those "die gloriously for Allah" types, and thus b) he wanted to go on dictating, and c) he already knew from bitter experience that the US army could crush his in a fight.

Also, remember that bit about Saddam being a secular dictator? It was pretty well-known (outside of the ignorant and ass-kissing Corporate Media) that the Iraqi government and Islamic extremist groups like Al-Qaeda really didn't get along. Bush's constant efforts to link the two didn't do his credibility any good to anyone who knew this--said anyone, sadly, didn't include our lazy and gullible corporate mass media, who are so terrified of appearing 'unpatriotic' that they can be counted on to repeat unquestioned any fool thing a Republican says.

No weapons, no threat, no connection to 9/11, no reason to invade beyond BushCo's hubris. Q.E.D.

As for the current state of Operation Iraqi Clusterfuck: If the goal of the Iraq invasion was to Keep America Safe From Terrorism(tm), it's failed on every conceivable level. If it was to produce a reasonably friendly subservient US client-state, I think that pooch is already well and truly screwed, too. But 'we' don't have to admit failure 'til US troops leave. When and if we finally do, the country will probably collapse into bloody civil war, and eventually 'stabilize' as yet another America-hating Fundamentalist Islamic Theocracy that grudgingly sells us oil.

So, I'm smarter than you, I'm smarter than Bush & Company, and I'm smarter than the New York Times. So why ain't I rich...? --Gulik 13:48, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

Do you know how to catch a monkey? Monkeys are very fast, and climb really well, so just chasing after them won't work. What you do is take a jar with a narrow mouth, and put a piece of fruit in it that's just a little smaller than the mouth. Then tie it down securely somewhere monkeys go. A monkey will smell the fruit and reach in to take it, but they can't get it out, since their hand holding the fruit won't fit through the mouth of the jar. Now, you can walk up to the monkey. It could get away.... but only if it let go of the fruit.

Iraq is the US's monkey trap, and its one our rulers made for themselves. --Gulik 13:48, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

(unindent) Sorry, my two points got crossed by trying to keep things somewhat concise. What I meant was that most of the critism directed towards Bush (at least from me) has to do with the facts that we're now embedded so deeply in Iraq that we're looking at two very nasty options: Either a full withdrawal, which just screams Vietnam Helicopter Incident, or keeping the troops in harms way for no reason. None of Clinton's engagments ever had this kind of long term occupation. Also, every mission Clinton sent troops into was either by request of or in conjunction with other UN forces. For Iraq, we had little support and GW gave the world the finger because he wanted to go play in the sand (full credit to George Carlin for that joke RIP). My other problem was that I was not sure if they had WMDs. Colin Powell's evidence was hardly convincing, and there were a few holes in other parts of the story as well. I did think Iraq had some limited capability weapons (considering we sold them to em) but I didn't think the danger of Nuclear Warfare was immenent with him. Not sure if the draft question was yours or someone else's, but I would say Hell No. Should the draft be reinstated, I'll be in Canada with the Moose :) and to Human, I think the reason we don't look like a nation at war is because of the way it was handled. WWII brought people together because everyone believed in the cause we were fighting, same as right after 9/11 (I still support the war in Afghanistan) but this war was force fed to us (much like Vietnam) and that divides people horribly SirChuckB^{El...ipses are Cool...} 03:30, 14 July 2008 (EDT)

You are kind of making Iraq War predictions, but you haven't yet responded to my, "what would constitute failure, and what would constitute success?"

You'd have lots of company heading for Canada if we got the draft. There would be a new wave of Pacifists. Be sure to thank Libertarians for getting rid of the draft, and it won't be Libertarians that reinstate it.

Rabid partisanship divides people horribly -- the Iraq War is, for the most part, only a backdrop to the political scene. After (if) the war is over, the diviseness will still revolve around the Us vs Them partisanship of the major American parties. That's how they recruit. Those in Congress, who are all buddies, cynically use political differences to get votes, either they are not aware of the hate they cause, or don't care.

-- Rem^Beau 08:50, 14 July 2008 (EDT)

I'm inclined to doubt it was the Libertarians who abolished the draft, seeing how they have no real political pull in this country (aside from giving the GOP more quotes about why cutting social spending and abolishing business regulation is Always A Good Thing). --Gulik 13:52, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

Mike Gravel (D-AK) and his filibuster probably had as much to do with it as anyone, although Karl Hess (libertarian, later a big-L Libertarian, and Barry Goldwater's former speechwriter) was pretty heavy in the public policy analysis arena trying to get the draft abolished in the early 70s. Mostly though I suspect it was abolished because the draft laws had become so widely disobeyed they were unenforcable and it was becoming difficult to get a conviction. Credit the kids more than anyone for just not showing up. There was no one group who gets all the credit, libertarians nor anyone else. Secret Squirrel 14:04, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

C'mon. You give Liberals credit for everything Liberal, but when Libtarians spearhead reforms, then "There was no one group who gets all the credit". You "suspect it was abolished because ...". You "are inclined to doubt". Listen to yourself -- you should be embarassed.

Give credit where credit is due.

-- Rem^Beau 23:23, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

Sure, as soon as you produce a (non-Libt) source that confirms your claim that justifies "thank Libertarians for getting rid of the draft" ħuman 23:32, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

Give it up -- you know well it was Libertarians that spearheaded the effort to get rid of the draft, and i know you are not inclined to give Libts credit for anything. You just want to burn my time.

You'd rather snipe than address my responses to your posts on other pages.

-- Rem^Beau 00:08, 22 August 2008 (EDT)

Comments like the above are why I usually ignore you. I "know" that Libts now "spearheaded" the "effort"... moving the goalposts, much? Not ever bothering to back up your random assertions? All I'm doing is asking you to show that one of the few factual claims you have made is actually, you know, "true". ħuman 00:16, 22 August 2008 (EDT)

1) Why should i bother to "back up" what you already know to be true? Just confirm that the Libt is correct once in awhile.

2) What do you mean by "random" assertions? I assume it is a slight of some kind, trying to make out that my assertions aren't up to the value of yours.

3) What "goalposts" have i moved? I want to see your basis for that complaint.

4) Does that "now" you placed before "spearheaded" have any significance, or did you just inadvertently put it there?

5) Ah -- so i have "to produce a (non-Libt) source that confirms" my claims, but when you make claims, Liberal sources are fine? Here's how a level playing field works -- we both make good-faith claims using sources we consider accurate and honest, and the other can question a source (or the facts) if there is a reason to. Unilateral disarmament may be a Liberal approach, but it is NOT, decidedly NOT, a Libt approach.

6) If it pleases you to ignore me, forget the threats and just go for it, but if not, address my posts that contain arguments rather than just snipe. Lose your "gotcha" approach and let's just have a good faith debate. You are capable, i have seen it.

-- Rem^Beau 11:55, 23 August 2008 (EDT)

Um, Rem, I'm much to much of a heretic to ever be a LibDem. Just an across the board heretic. Personally I think the orthodox liberals get too much credit when in fact most change for the better comes from those who think outside the box, take risks, and don't neatly fit into any category, and from those who just don't jump when somebody tells them to. You seem to have missed part of the point of my post which was to point out that yeah, at least one prominent libertarian (Karl Hess) does get some credit. Secret Squirrel 20:27, 22 August 2008 (EDT)

Yup -- you're right, i found it, thanks. Karl Hess was a heckova guy ... usually.

Wasn't it Goldwater that actually sponsored the bill in the Senate?

-- Rem^Beau 12:04, 23 August 2008 (EDT)

Mission

Perhaps someone could explain how this article is "on mission"? --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 04:38, 22 August 2008 (EDT)

Hm....irrational glorification of warmongering seems to be a big schtick of the same right-wing loonies that tend to be Creationists? --Gulik 18:23, 22 August 2008 (EDT)

Second that. Sounds as good a reason as any. EVDebs 21:22, 22 August 2008 (EDT)

"Seems"? Also, that's jolly good, but as far as I know, none of the worthy gentlemen currently mentioned in the article really qualify as "right-wing loonie Creationists". --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 21:25, 22 August 2008 (EDT)

There are plenty of creationists who are also pacifists, although I'm sure they would prefer the term "nonresistant" over pacifism which usually means they go about their rural lives quietly and don't get involved in worldly political affairs. It's probably a much more effective means of protest than protest is anyhow, since active protesters do tend to be the exact mirror image of those they are protesting. Take Rationalwiki and Conservapedia, for example... Secret Squirrel 21:28, 22 August 2008 (EDT)

We are NOTHING like Conservapedia! And I'm blocking you for 5 years, 17 days, and 23 minutes for DARING to suggest otherwise! Godspeed fnord! --Gulik 19:54, 23 August 2008 (EDT)

Every Representative and Senator who voted for the Iraq War but avoided serving if and when it was possible for them

After I added this, I realized it needs lots of qualification. At the time, it was just before the mid-term elections, and there was tremendous pressure, especially in moderate districts, to support the administration's lies. I would add, "who didn't repudiate their vote by the end of 2005" or some such. Also, One Mr. Squirrel requested in an edit comment, " nice copout but we need some representative names, maybe 1 Democrat for every Republican already listed". Well, first, there will probably be more GOP than Dems in the list of this bunch. Second, why do they have to have equal numbers? Anyway, since you're the one with the bug up your ass over this, why don't you research it? Just dig out the vote on line. Strike off everyone who voted against the enabling of the mad war. Strike off everyone who served on active duty during wartime. Decide what to do about those who served during peacetime. Perhaps strike off those who publicly apologized/recanted/whatever. Then post it here in talk, so we can decide if it improovs the article or not. ħuman 22:18, 22 August 2008 (EDT)

Try this again, I don't think that's an accurate descpription. A true chickenhawk is one who actively pushes for war. A lot of representatives have voted in the affirmative for war, we can't count every one of them as chickenhawks. I think the chickenhawk title should be reserved for people who push for wars, defend them at all times and attack anyone who dares to question the reasoning. SirChuckB^{El...ipses are Cool...} 22:49, 22 August 2008 (EDT)

I agree completely. However, to help pimp the squirrel's ride, I posted all the fucking data at Chickenhawk/Iraq_war_vote. You're goddamn welcome. ħuman 23:00, 22 August 2008 (EDT)

I thank you Human..... SirChuckB^{El...ipses are Cool...} 23:00, 22 August 2008 (EDT)

You're welcome. And I am still improoving the data... ħuman 23:16, 22 August 2008 (EDT)

Data is good. Data makes dead socialist labor leaders happy. And after all this, count me as still on the fence about Bill Clinton's chickenhawkityness. EVDebs 00:26, 23 August 2008 (EDT)

Me too... awaiting evidence, though. ħuman 02:25, 23 August 2008 (EDT)

(unindent) I'm sure I said this before, but I'm still against adding Clinton. While I (and no logical person) can deny he dodged the draft (the legal way) he doesn't fit into the definition, just running a war doesn't make you a Chickenhawk, or we'll have to add 80% of US presidents, including Lincoln. To be a "true" Chickenhawk, you have to be really gung ho and excited about war. SirChuckB^{El...ipses are Cool...} 14:44, 23 August 2008 (EDT)

Why the end of 2005? Seems arbitrary to me, excuses far too many people who should have known better in 2003, and makes excuses for a certain political party's tepid failure to unequivocally condemn the Iraq War during the 2004 elections. There was no excuse for ever supporting the Iraq War nor the first Gulf War, ever. Secret Squirrel 11:54, 11 September 2008 (EDT)

It is arbitrary. I split the difference between when "some of us" knew it was wrong and when "most of us" knew. Also, since I did all the friggin' work pulling up and organizing the vote tallies, I get to pick the cut off date :P Why don't you go get the data on who voted to support the first gulf war? We also need to dig through the records and see who served in the armed forces when they could, especially "under fire"... ħuman 15:21, 11 September 2008 (EDT)

Uncle Ron

We need to settle this once and for all, or the reversions (which I fully admit to being a part of) will just go on forever. The two topics that really need to be dealt with are the inclusions on Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton in the prominent Chickenhawks sections. My argument in it's basic form is this: Reagan was not "part of the fighting force," he made VD films for the army. He was no more a soldier than Elvis. Bill Clinton did not actively champion the cause of war, he simply held command, therefore, he does not meet the definition of Chickenhawk SirChuckB^{El...ipses are Cool...} 12:29, 11 September 2008 (EDT)

Wasn't Elvis stationed in Germany? --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 12:41, 11 September 2008 (EDT)

1. By SirChuckB's definition, Al Gore wasn't "part of the fighting force" either since he was a reporter. How far do you want to take this? I would say Quayle certainly belongs because he openly admitted he used daddy's influence to get into the National Guard to avoid the draft, but Reagan does not belong.

2. Reagan was no more hawkish than Clinton. If bombing Iraq several times, Haiti, and Kosovo don't qualify for actively championing the cause of war, neither do Grenada and Lebanon.

3. The reason for not including Clinton is there is no consensus to include him. Fine and dandy - Look above - there is no consensus to include Reagan either. The vote is 3 for, 4 against, and 2 abstains.

4. Correct, Elvis was a soldier.

Bottom line, if Clinton doesn't belong on the list neither does Reagan. If Reagan belongs, even more so does Clinton. The two were about equal in their level of hawkishness in foreign policy. Secret Squirrel 13:02, 11 September 2008 (EDT)

Taking these a little out of order for the sake of dealing with smaller issues first. Elvis was not a soldier. He was propaganda in a uniform. He held no real responsibilities, was given an unprecedented amount of special treatment and was never put into any situations where he was in immediate serious danger (IE, he was not in active combat zones). Now onto the Reagan thing. The issue here is not that Reagan and Clinton both led wars, but it was how it was handled. Reagan was well known for his heavy handed tactics (I don't even count the whole we begin bombing things as mentioned earlier, it was a joke). Not only did he openly provoke our enemies (Tear down this wall anyone?) but he threatened a military response to everything. With Clinton, he sent the military in (as in actual combat troops) for peacekeeping missions in Somalia, Bosnia, Kosovo and a few others that escape me at the moment. The bottom line as I see it is that Reagan was much more hawkish in his matters than Clinton was. SirChuckB^{El...ipses are Cool...} 13:22, 11 September 2008 (EDT)

"Provoke our enemies"? Because it is such a horrible thing to call things as they are, right? --Arisboch (talk) 14:07, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Clinton didn't go into Somalia - Bush Sr did, in December 1992, leaving Clinton to clear up. BTW, re Reagan, does nobody else rember the INF treaty, the first ever nuclear arms reduction treaty? That was Reagan, whatever you may think of him (and I hated him!) Totnesmartin 16:08, 11 September 2008 (EDT)

Ok, I'll take your word for that... I just remember Clinton talking about it... either way, it kinda helps my point... And while the treaty was great, it wasn't just for the sake of eliminating nukes from the world, it was to try and prevent complete destruction. SirChuckB^{El...ipses are Cool...} 16:11, 11 September 2008 (EDT)

Some of us consider being a soldier and being propaganda in uniform pretty much the same thing; if somebody really wants to serve their country they should join the local volunteer fire department or be a National Park ranger or join Americorps. Also, Elvis was never in any active combat zone because nobody was in an active combat zone in 1958-1960 - whether or not he got special treatment, saying he wasn't a soldier is just silly. Having said that, the main point is there is no consensus to include Reagan. If no consensus is sufficient reason to leave Clinton out, it should be sufficient reason to leave Reagan out. Secret Squirrel 17:46, 11 September 2008 (EDT)

Obama

Really? Just really? Not only did Barack Obama not support the war in Iraq, but the right was all over him for not being gung ho enough during his speech. You think he qualifies? SirChuckB^{A product of Affirmative Action} 06:33, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

This isn't about Iraq; it's about Afghanistan. ConservapediaEditor 06:36, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I say again, though. He does have an exit strategy, no?Jfaartz 06:39, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Obama is another Neocon ZOG puppet, quit defending him just because he is a Nigger. He is like Bush except for his skin color. 75.248.163.161 06:40, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Obama aint a chicken hawk. Ace^{of Spades} 06:44, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I say he's not, wit regards to Afghanistan, because e's just finishing a war he did not start. Jfaartz 06:45, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

He has a stated exit strategy that is "dependent on conditions on the ground". Pretty big loophole there. Either way, even if you take Obama at his word that troops will come home in 2011, that's 2 years that a great number of troops will be in harm's way. Escalation did not work in Vietnam, and based upon prior history, it probably will not work in Afghanistan. ConservapediaEditor 07:01, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

While I agree, that doesn't make him a chickenhawk. He's just trying to clean up Bush's mess. Jfaartz 07:02, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Was Nixon a hawk in your opinion? (most people in Nixon's administration served in WWII) One could argue that, in spite of escalating the Vietnam War, Nixon was just cleaning up LBJ's mess. ConservapediaEditor 07:07, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

(EC)And I would be inclined to say he was a hawk, but that was different. He only left Vietnam when it became politically expedient. Otherwise, he probably would've stayed. Obama has been promising since the campaign to, eventually, exit Afghanistan. While I disagree with his escalation, he is going to do so and then leave. Nixon escalated the Vietnam War and then, when the times changed, he changed his mind. See the difference? Jfaartz 07:10, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

In the 1968 campaign, Nixon promised to leave Vietman. His program was called "Vietnamization". In 1972, he got Kissinger to sign a peace treaty right before the election. Of course, the "credibility gaps" of both LBJ and Nixon do not impugn the credibility of Obama, but we've heard this line before. Popular opinion against the war in Vietnam had changed before LBJ left office and the main reason Nixon won in a landslide in 1972 was because of the peace accords just signed. ConservapediaEditor 07:16, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

In honesty, based on our definition, I wouldn't consider either Nixon or Obama as chickenhawks, because our definition says that they aggressively support military solutions as the primary tool of diplomacy. I don't think either did/do/does. Jfaartz 07:21, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Obama is def not a chicken hawk. the Afghan war is far more justified than Nam ever was. Ace^{of Spades} 07:31, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Not to mention, you're comparing too completely seperate actions. Vietnam was a completely different situation than the current conflict. I would agree that Nixon is not a Chickenhawk under the normal operating definition. The issue isn't so much foreign policy as it is an aggresive push for military action, despite having personally avoided serving. That's the big difference. People who don't serve are not automatically Chickenhawks, it's the one who go out of their way to not serve that get the title. That's why the Chickenhawk label primarily applies to people from the Vietnam draft age, because of their strange exemptions. SirChuckB^{A product of Affirmative Action} 08:11, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

And what's with Syria or Lybia?--Arisboch (talk) 17:03, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

The mirror I built of the NHG archive here

It seems to me that I might as well delete them all now that the Gazette has it back on line. Thoughts? ħuman 19:49, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I was going to say "what if they take it down again" but we can't mirror stuff on the off-chance it'll disappear. We'd need all need a server each. Totnesmartin (talk) 20:15, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

it got lost when they did a big webpage transition. Shall we just remove the link to it, just in case? ħuman 01:22, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

It's back. ħuman 03:55, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Chickenhawks aren't necessarily hypocrites

… though I admit they usually are. But a politician's attitude about war need not be "always for" or "always against". Technically, a politician could say "I stayed the hell out of Vietnam because that was a stupid and awful war, but Iraq/Afghanistan is another story." It's kind of strange that none of the chickenhawks have said that (AFAIK); I suppose their rhetoric is generally too much in the domain of "Serving in the military is always the noblest thing one could do and anyone who deliberately didn't serve was a coward" (though phrased more vaguely, to keep attention away from their own records). 72.72.199.114 (talk) 01:27, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes they are, by definition, really. ħuman 03:55, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, you can always gear the definition of such words towards smearing your political opponents...--Arisboch (talk) 14:11, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

"↑ British, but dragged the UK into largest number of wars of any British PM. "

I'm certainly no fan of Tony Blair, but I'm a little sceptical of that claim. TheSocktor (talk) 23:23, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

I can only think of four campaigns that took place during his leadership. He got in power in the last few months of The Troubles. Britain assisted NATO in the bombing of Yugoslavia. It intervened in Sierra Leone's Civil War in 2000 by having the Army fight the rebels rather than just help civilians retreat. After that comes the Afghan War and Iraq. That's five conflicts, you might not count the first two. -- Forerunner (talk) 23:56, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Ain't that just

ad hominem?--Arisboch (talk) 19:27, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

No. Labeling them chickenhawks because they are extremely pro-war, but have no actual combat service and likely never would if given the chance, isnt an ad hominem because it's ultiamtly based on something they do/don't do, not just the fact we don't like them or such. It's the same as brought up on the Rape page, calling somebody a rape apologist because they defend rape isn't an ad hominem because they are defending rape. --Miekal 19:37, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Nope, this label implies, that someone's ideas of military policy is less worth, when he wasn't in the military--Arisboch (talk) 20:20, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Labeling people like this seems pretty bogus from the perspective of people from nations that don't/hardly participate in wars. But the US gets involved in wars all the time, so I guess their abundance of war-worn former soldiers means over in America you get to shame the war proponents that haven't been in the military? Is the opinion of non-military war proponents really always inferior by default? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 21:26, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the opinion of a jingoistic draft-dodger is of questionable value. One might say that it is putting Kant's categorical imperative ass-backwards, sending other people to do a dangerous job that one wasn't willing to do oneself when the opportunity arose.

Those who have seen organized murder and mayhem, up close and personal, tend to recognize war for the stupid wasteful process it is. Based on my own experience, and on conversations with other veterans, I suspect that they would rather have our leaders think long and hard before engaging in a shooting war. Alec Sanderson (talk) 22:45, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

If you're not willing to fight, you shouldn't send others to do it for you. (Kant's CI and all that morality-applies-to-everyone jazz)

That said, this comes dangerously close to ad hom. Just cuz someone supports war but hasn't been to war doesn't mean they're wrong. (FDR is an example of being right but not having fought (regardless of his ability to do so).) FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 22:54, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

FDR gets a pass for obvious reasons. There are some far-fetched scenarios where accusations of chickenhawkery might be used as an ad hom attack, but in general, it is grounds for questioning the validity of calls to war. Any politician who was fit for service, and bolted, should understand that thing about Caesar's wife avoiding the appearance of impropriety. Sadly, the appearance of hypocrisy is not too damaging to a political career. Alec Sanderson (talk) 23:09, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

So this is still shooting the messenger rather than the message...--Arisboch (talk) 21:27, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Joschka Fischer (minister of the exterior in Germany 1998-2005) also never served in any military yet was one of the principal architects of the NATO intervention in Yugoslavia 1999. Does this qualify him for being listed as a chickenhawk? Or does his anti Iraq war stance let him off the hook here? 141.30.210.129 (talk) 15:11, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Organizing a war isn't promoting one. Anyone advocating for the necessity of a war without having served can reasonably be termed a chickenhawk. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 17:58, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

So, if I advocate for the necessity of a war against, say, DAESH while never having served in an army, does that make me a chickenhawk? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 18:38, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

That's the general idea of the term, yes. All accusations of hypocrisy are fundamentally ad hominems, chicken-hawkery is no exception. Nonetheless it's a particularly resonant accusation for people who don't want to see their family die for arrogant assholes. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 19:19, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

In case you don't know about the whole 1999 mess... This is the speech Fischer gave to convince his party, that had been largely pacifist up to this point. The paint on his suit is from some members of the left wing of his party having thrown paint at him. Without him no German soldier would have ever set foot in Kosovo. And he did in fact never serve in any military (though he did beat up police) 141.30.210.129 (talk) 19:45, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure where's the hypocrisy if the definition of chickenhawk is so broad. If a past of active draft-dodging was a requirement, then sure. But since it's apparently not a requirement.. the majority of society goes through life without giving much thought to the possibility of a military career. How are they hypocrites when they think bad situation X probably requires military intervention to solve it? I should also note that if you actually went ahead and required all politicians to be former or acting military personel, you'd have a de facto military junta. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 10:45, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

And what, if there's no conscription in a country? No conscription, no chickenhawks? Does one become a so-called "chickenhawk" by dodging the draft or just not volunteering into the army, if there is no draft, cause as it stands right now, the sole act of not volunteering for the military and endorsing military action is enough to fall under the definition of "chickenhawk" in the article.--Arisboch (talk) 10:52, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

As it stands now, nearly the only countries that have a draft are those were you should dodge the draft. Sure there are some exceptions of democracies with a draft like Switzerland or Israel, but nowadays countries with a draft are often in the Russia or Turkey category, or even worse... Even Germany got rid of their draft... 141.30.210.129 (talk) 13:42, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Sometimes not serving is a good thing

Imagine a politician was born in a time-frame where him having to serve the Nazi military would have been a real possibility. Instead he went into exile during that time to avoid being caught by the Nazis. Once the war is over, he comes back only to be viciously attacked as a "traitor" who did not serve his country in war - even though everybody admits that the war was criminal in addition to being criminally stupid. Now if we are to uncritically believe the "chickenhawk" narrative, such a politician can only ever take dovish stands. Even though not serving for the Nazis in their wars of extermination was in fact the more courageous stand. Some even paid with their lives for not serving the Nazi war machine. This case is not merely academic. see here. The fact that this particular politician did in fact take a dovish stance is besides the point. He was of course attacked for his conciliatory and dovish policies towards Poland and the Soviet Union, which again shows the amount of courage something like that takes. If however, a politician who thusly avoided being drafted into a murderous war were later to see war as a necessary evil in one select case, would he have to be labeled a chickenhawk? This is just a word of caution not to mindlessly apply this a slur and hope it sticks even if there is little justification... 141.30.210.129 (talk) 15:08, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Uh, so? The argument here isn't that chickenhawks can't be right about a war being needed, just that they make up the overwhelming majority of assholes who push for poorly considered intercessionary wars. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 17:58, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

The point is that neither never having served in a military nor advocating for a certain specific war is necessarily a bad thing. Nor is the combination of the two. You can yell "chickenhawk" all you want, the intervention against Nazi Germany was the right decision and it did in fact come way way too late. This article seems to only present a one-sided brouhaha along the lines of "see all those people who wanted to get rid of Saddam never served in the military" which does not a good argument make. Especially if it is applied against people like Christopher Hitchens who never served in a military, yet still went where it hurt in his journalism. He did in fact go to Syria, Iraq, North Korea and all those other "nice" places whereas many of his critics engaged in armchair politics and knew not what they were talking about. And that's not even mentioning the fact that he voluntarily underwent waterboarding to see for himself whether it is torture (it is) My point is: why it may be a legit criticism, this article portrays it as if it were always a good idea to throw around the word chickenhawk instead of making the case for or against a specific war. War is bad. But sometimes the alternative is worse. 141.30.210.129 (talk) 19:42, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Nope, you clearly just don't want to feel guilty about pushing good people to fight and die in war. I can't take that off your conscience for you. Sorry, pal. You're going to have to own a portion of every single person who dies. If you can do that, and say "it was worth it" then by all means, be a comfortable utilitarian. But don't pretend creating narratives for history exempts you for what you choose to do. Either own your choices for what they are or live in denial. Don't mince about words that might be used to describe you. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 19:54, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

It's not like you are leading lambs to their slaughter. In most modern armies, there is no conscription and in some armies there is even the (theoretic) possibility of conscientious objection to a specific war. My point is: Whether somebody was in a military or not should not elevate him/her as a better person or for some reason an "expert" on foreign policy or war. McCain's foreign policy is no better than Obama's even though nobody would deny McCain's service (while Obama was not in the military he provided an arguably a lot more worthwhile service as a community organizer). But in the rare cases that a war is justified, it is precisely because having the war saves more lives than not having it. Imagine FDR would have decided to not enter World War II. Do you think he would have had a better conscience after the war upon hearing of the things the Nazis did? (which were more or less already suspected during the war and certainly informed the decision of some people). This decision is not easy either way. As well it shouldn't be. After all, we are talking about human lives. But saying "war is bad" and "you have no right to declare war if you yourself never were a soldier" is cheap and adds nothing of value to the discussion. Sure Bush never really saw a shot fired in anger, but Colin Powell did. Both had the same opinion on Iraq. Does that make one's opinion true and the other's false? And to be precisely clear: In my humble opinion Germany should refrain from intervening in any war for... I guess a thousand years. But a country like the US can't afford that luxury. If the next Rwanda happens, who could even theoretically stop it? China? Belgium? 141.30.210.129 (talk) 20:22, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Choosing to go to war, without listening to the ones who have the experience to plan it and run with the results, is colossal stupidity. Direct experience of war is not strictly necessary, but it can give a politician some basis for evaluating the capability of the professionals who have to go and do it.

Chickenhawkery is one of those things that you know it when you see it. War is not a debate, and some people deserve a fat wet scaly ad hominem right up alongside the head for lying to send other people's kids into harm's way on foolish missions. Alec Sanderson (talk) 23:19, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

If only people who served in the military should be in the business of ordering wars, that in essence ends you up with only military people having control of the military. Exactly the situation you have in a military dictatorship. And as we have seen military dictatorships are usually way more hawkish and have a lot more disregard for the common soldier than civilian governments, even those led by chickenhawks... 141.30.210.129 (talk) 13:39, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Good god, you're being shitty right now. You gotta know this is a dishonest argument. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 13:44, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Because...?--Arisboch (talk) 13:50, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Because the point of calling people chickenhawks is that they frequently aren't concerned with the human costs they often blithely wrap in faux patriotism. This "you want a military dictatorship because you're okay with calling hypocrites out" is dishonest as fuck. As all hell, really. At no point have I ever said, implied, or suggested that the chickenhawk question should be the end-all be-all in any discussion of war. And the repeated back-handed implication of this shitty BoN has been exactly that. Fuck that. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 14:08, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

He just takes this ad hominem-argument, which "chickenhawk" is, to it's rhetorically exaggerated, logical conclusion.--Arisboch (talk) 14:15, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Actually, when someone goes "if you'd been in the military, you wouldn't be this warhawkish", going "actually, there's plenty of warhawks in the military and letting the military decide for itself when to wage war isn't very likely to eliminate all wars" seems like a legit strategy. If you want to claim "if you'd seen the true face of war, you wouldn't be advocating for it" that's fair enough, but being in the military is far from a guarantee that you'll witness 'the true face of war'. Even if you're out there waging war, that doesn't mean you'll be innately aware of the sufferings of the local population or will automatically de-associate explosions from awesomeness. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 15:47, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ (edit conflict)My point is this: Military service in no way "ennobles" a person or makes him/her a "better human being" and his/her value judgment when it comes to foreign policy may be affected by military service, but we don't know in which way. Both Erich Maria Remarque and Ernst Jünger served in World War I on the (losing) German side. Both wrote widely read books about their experiences. But while Remarque wrote a scalding indictment of all things war, Jünger's "In Stahlgewittern" was a favorite read among the right wing in the 1920s. There is - in my humble opinion - too high an opinion of the military in general in the US, which makes it hard to acknowledge that US soldiers commit war crimes and other difficult truths. In most developed countries, there is significant skepticism of all things military, at least on the right wing and no ex military (who served voluntarily and above the rank of private) could rise in the ranks of most left wing parties in Europe if (s)he did not show major "serving dove" cred. The US idolizes the military to an - imho - unhealthy degree, which ends up giving us the very concept of chickenhawkery (probably fueled by those never serving wanting to play "tough guy" for once) as well as the needless idolatry of the "war hero" (who as we have seen can make crappy as well as good presidents) 141.30.210.129 (talk) 13:57, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

(I put the contribution here to avoid further confusion above)... Sooner or later the whole concept of chickenhawkery will become obsolete as the last generation to be possible draft dodgers is slowly dropping out of politics and currently only about 1% of the US population ever sees army installations from the inside in earnest. Sure, both parties will from time to time nominate a "war hero" for president (Who will almost always lose), but for the next years and decades to come the vast majority of politicians on both sides of the aisle will be of the "non-serving" variety. Which does not have to be a good or a bad thing. The only thing around this is to reinstate the draft or drastically increase recruitment and even than the political effects (with more of those people appearing at the national political stage) will not be seen until decades later. Yes I know there is a veteran caucus in Congress and the US will probably always have more veterans in parliament than most other developed countries, but if 10% of Congress have served (which implies that ex-soldiers are disproportionately likely to go into politics, which I don't believe) and 90% haven't, throwing around the word chickenhawk becomes rather silly. 141.30.210.129 (talk) 14:30, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Put it this way

1. Assume that war is an evil, by and large, and the the human costs associated with are so great that it can very rarely be justified.
2. Further assume that, for a given political divide, more people on one side don't accept that truth than on the other.
3. Now expose some people to military service. Assume that those exposed to military service are more likely to adjust their opinions towards the truth (as defined by the first assumption).

So who will be left with the incorrect opinion? It will skew to those on the 'bad' side of the political divide who didn't serve in the military. Is it fair to call them 'chickenhawks'? Probably not. They're not chickenhawks; they're just dumb.

But now consider a further subset - people who actively avoided service or arranged for a cushy posting far from any real danger. They must, at the personal level, accepted that there were human costs to themselves, otherwise they wouldn't have avoided service. So, if they profess a contrary opinion in public, they are hypocrites. 'Chickenhawk' is as good a descriptor of this hypocrisy as any, and they deserve it. It is not ad-hom.

Now, chickenhawks go out of their way to lose themselves amongst the throng of 'just dumb'. It gives them ranks of easy supporters who don't see or don't care about the hypocrisy. Now, at this point, it's perfectly reasonable to call those parts of 'just dumb' by harsher terms - after all, even if they're dumb about the realities of war, they should at least be expected to notice rank hypocrisy. 'Chickenhawk enabler' is a mouthful, and 'easily led sap' is too generic, so you might as well bundle them up with the 'chickenhawks' and have done with it. Not entirely fair, but they had it coming. Again, not ad-hom.

That said, we could stand to make the hypocrisy angle stronger in the article, probably with a cull of the list, to boot. Queex_{chthonic murmurings} 14:34, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Which is still condemning people's opinions about military policy not due to their arguments, but due to them having or not having served in the military, which is ad hominem . And since there is no draft in the US, that argument will become in the near future even more irrelevant than it is today.--Arisboch (talk) 14:41, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

It's condemning people for being wrong and for being hypocrites, not for any personal quality or epxerience. How can you still argue that tripe when the argument is lain bare right in front of you? Queex_{chthonic murmurings} 14:42, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Right, if the politics of war were this disconnected, impersonal thing, it'd be such a valid point. But let's be honest. The build up to war, particularly when chickenhawks are in charge tends to center around "them are bad guys, lets get 'em and people who don't want to are cowards". So yeah. People will keep using the chickenhawk argument, because there very rarely is this calm debate about the necessity of war that merits deep counter arguments. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 14:45, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)There are more than enough examples of people going to war and enjoying it, even wanting to make more wars after it. I don't even have to go into Godwin territory, just think of Kennedy (served in World War II, escalated the war in Vietnam), Ernst Jünger (served in World War I, greatly enjoyed himself, glorified the experience), or the guy who said "it's good war is so terrible, otherwise we would enjoy it too much". Yes Ike is on record as saying he disliked war due to his personal experience with it. Did that keep him from sleazy CIA tricks in foreign policy that set the stage for later war criminals like tricky dick, Kissinger or Saint Ronny who all (tried to) get rid of democratically elected governments they did not like through underhand means. 141.30.210.129 (talk) 14:49, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

(another edit conflict) "Chickenhawkery" is not yet an obsolete term. There are living examples at whom to point. Citizen soldier and cartoonist Bill Mauldin recognized a form of chicken hawk back in the forties. Even without conscription, there will still be armchair warriors, hypocritical politicians, willing to send other people's kids off to die. Alec Sanderson (talk) 14:50, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Wow, now that's leaving even the pretense of "chickenhawk" not being ad hominem at the door. How can you avoid military service, when there's not even a draft?? BTW, the draft was instituted in the US in about 1940.--Arisboch (talk) 14:55, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Say what? Conscription in the United States has happened on and off since colonial times, and only ended in 1973. Besides, being a draft-dodger is not the only form of saber-rattling hypocrisy. Alec Sanderson (talk) 15:05, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

(EC)God damn it, listen. No one in this entire discussion hasn't said it's not an ad hominem. We have an article on hypocrisy too. That's also, fundamentally and undeniably ad hominem, but we don't shy away from calling out other classes of hypocrites. Yes, it's fallacious, when used as the sole basis of an argument. No that doesn't mean it's not relevant and factual for a rationalist understanding of the world. I'm getting pretty annoyed with the level of "but but but (point totally acknowledged)" you and this IP are exhibiting about this. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 15:05, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Queex, at least, claimed, that it's not ad hominem and the rest tried to minimize it or something similar.--Arisboch (talk) 15:09, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Fine, I admit my mistake. I'm sorry. I did get rather intense about a statement I was totally wrong about. If you want to argue with Queex that it is an ad hominem, go right ahead. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 15:12, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘So what kind of changes (if any) should be made to the mainspace page? 141.30.210.129 (talk) 15:18, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Classify it as ad hominem.--Arisboch (talk) 15:23, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

It's not ad-hom. Get over it.

For changes - I'd emphasise the hypocrisy aspect, mention that it's also used more generally for intervention cheerleaders amongst politicians, and restrict the list to known hypocrites. Queex_{chthonic murmurings} 15:29, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

It is, get over it (copy and paste is fun) and is getting even more irrelevant (in most countries of the 1st world without any ongoing conflicts, the draft is abolished, anyway).--Arisboch (talk) 15:32, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Even if it is an ad hominem, so what? Where is it used to invalidate an argument? It is more typically used to paint a politician as a hypocrite, suggesting they may be unfit to conn the ship of state. Political rhetoric may be effective and influential (for good or ill) without following the rules of formal logic, a fact some naive "rationalists" may lose sight of. See fallacy fallacy and onwards into that rabbit hole. Alec Sanderson (talk) 15:49, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Of course political debate is often almost always lead with emotional arguments and bullshittery, the RW ain't no exception, not by a long shot.--Arisboch (talk) 16:43, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

"Going to war is wrong because you never served in the military." is ad-hom.

"Going to war is wrong. You never served in the military, so you don't have any particular insight." is not ad-hom.

"Going to war is wrong. You arguing for other people to go to war so strongly when you've never shown that enthusiasm on your own behalf is hinky." is not ad-hom.

Glad to be of service. Queex_{chthonic murmurings} 15:52, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

"Hinky"? "No enthusiasm on your behalf"? That's still talking about what the particular person had done or not done and not about his arguments and thus ad hominem ("no enthusiasm"? Define "enthusiasm" in that context, cause if you said that even not joining the military in absence of a draft is enough to incur your judgment of "no enthusiasm", than it'd basically call for either the abolishment of the military or the establishment of a military regime a la what people misunderstood Robert E. Heinlein wrote about in "Starship Troopers").--Arisboch (talk) 16:42, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

You appear to need a refresher in what Ad hominem actually means. Hint: It means dismissing the argument solely because of the person. The 'because' I used. No 'because', no 'ad hom'. Queex_{chthonic murmurings} 17:48, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Which is what "chickenhawk" is there for or implies.--Arisboch (talk) 17:55, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

It's a descriptor, not an argument, FFS. I know you're not this dense, really. What's going on? Queex_{chthonic murmurings} 17:58, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Nice escape hatch, don't forget the parachute.--Arisboch (talk) 18:01, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Actually. He's right. It's not an argument. It is a descriptor of an actor. Fuck. Queex was entirely right. I can't really endorse my previous logic of saying it's not an ad hominem. Unless the context is specially "we should not go to war because X is a chickenhawk" it's no an ad homenimem. And we're all goddamn idiots for thinking otherwise. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 18:14, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Give that man a cigar, and a C-note to light it with. (hint: pocket the C-note, and use a match like everybody else.) :) Alec Sanderson (talk) 15:55, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘regardless of whether the observation whether somebody served in the military adds much of value or relevance to the discussion or is even particularly intelligent, the fact remains that it adds a somewhat unnecessary loop to the debate where not the war at hand is discussed but rather the military "battle cred" of those proposing it. All the while they - chickenhawk or not - already sent the troops. When did in fact the accusation of chickenhawkery ever stop any chickenhawk from sending people to war? 141.30.210.129 (talk) 16:27, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Under no circumstances should this article change to be categorized as an ad hominem

The whole point is to highlight people who might be considering the lives of others to be their play things. Yes, it's an ad hom, but it's one that describes a very important factor in discussing this shit. You're both being awful. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 17:49, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

And again, it reads as something personal, like you're trying to justify being callous to yourselves by editing this article. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 17:51, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

First you refuse to call it ad hominem, then call it ad hominem, then allege "personal" motives in people, who disagree with you. What the hell??--Arisboch (talk) 17:54, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

I refuse to categorize the article as such, yes. It's stupid as hell that you're arguing this. Really fucking stupid. Woo-meister, pseudo-science pusher, and other terms are also ad hominems and they're ones with a lot of relevance. You've got something up your pair of asses about this, and it shows. Okay? And I never refused to call it ad hominem, I just think that's a stupid as fuck tranformation to an article that describes some real shitty behavior out there.

You don't need to jump up and yell "Fallacy" at everything that's not perfectly rational, especially when it has a place in an honest look at the world. It's neither helpful, nor informative. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 18:09, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

I propose to change the Wiki into "RationalWhenConvenientAndItSupportsMyWorldViewWiki", LOLz. --Arisboch (talk) 18:13, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

"But I thought this was supposed to be RATIONALWiki!" Drink!. Christ. No. You're being a real fucking shithead here. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 18:15, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

"Drink"? No thanks, I'm not into drinking games. I refuse to eat or drink because of contests and besides that, are you trying to drink from a lawn sprinkler (your "WHARRGARBL").--Arisboch (talk) 18:25, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Whatever the merits of the chickenhawk argument (or indeed its faults) it is in a technical sense (and usually no-one is more technical than rational people) an attack the person making an argument rather than at the argument itself. I rest my case. (for now) 141.30.210.129 (talk) 20:28, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

My main problems with this term

1. It adds an unnecessary and largely irrelevant emphasis on warhawks' military careers or lack thereof. Being a warhawk should generally be a bad thing, not just when one hasn't had a military career (yet).
2. It paints being a soldier in overly positive terms and dismisses people who don't want to put their life on the line as shameful cowards (and also perpetuates the stereotype that chickens are cowards). Um, hello? I didn't know we were in a military ad campaign.

141.134.75.236 (talk) 19:10, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Why it's relevant, extracted from our article on war:

“”I confess, without shame, that I am sick and tired of fighting — its glory is all moonshine; even success the most brilliant is over dead and mangled bodies, with the anguish and lamentations of distant families, appealing to me for sons, husbands, and fathers … it is only those who have never heard a shot, never heard the shriek and groans of the wounded and lacerated … that cry aloud for more blood, more vengeance, more desolation.

—William Tecumseh Sherman, 1865

ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 19:15, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

As I said before, if you want to argue that few warhawks have seen the true face of war, or else they wouldn't be so supportive of it, then fair enough. But joining the military is a farcry from being synonymous with going out on a journey to witness the horrors of war first-hand from the victims' perspective. That's mixing up being a soldier with being a war-zone photographer, methinks. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 19:28, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

It's ill-defined, especially when applied to figures like Thatcher & Blair where there's no specific reason why they would be expected to have served in the military. It makes a lot more sense when applied to people like Donald Trump, who escaped a mandatory draft during a major conflict through a series of convenient (and somewhat suspicious) technicalities, but is now not only promulgating hawkish foreign policy but also making absurd comments about John McCain's service record. This is the sort of thing we should be citing instead of presenting a bare list of names. Weaseloid^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 19:35, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

That sounds suspiciously like a good idea to improve the article. We were having a nice shouting match, thank you. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 19:37, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Nice, but not really productive. It's easy to push other people into war if one gets only as close as some names on a spreadsheet to those people or those they care about. It doesn't mean only those who have served can have an opinion. However, the people who want to throw US troops at anyone who so much farts in the US's general direction should calm the fuck down. This isn't a movie or a video game. Especially those, like Trump, that are willing to throw troops at perceived slights and then drop veterans when they come home and need help. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 19:54, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

“”I think a curse should rest on me — because I love this war. I know it's smashing and shattering the lives of thousands every moment — and yet — I can't help it — I enjoy every second of it.

—WINSTON CHURCHILL, letter to a friend, 1916

And before the question arises, yes the man saw action. There are people who go out of war and quite enjoy the experience. I can't comprehend it, and so can probably nobody who never fought in a war, but this feeling is real. And it is even more dangerous than Chickenhawkery, imho 141.30.210.129 (talk) 20:26, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Churchill was a grade-A arsehole, though. It wouldn't surprise me that he would see horror and express glee. Queex_{chthonic murmurings} 14:39, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't like Churchill's domestic policies for Britain or his Empire nostalgia one bit. But without him, I would probably never have been born, on account of my grandfather dying in the war. He was an asshole. But he was the right asshole at the right time. 141.30.210.129 (talk) 18:43, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

out of curiosity...

In what way are Samantha Power, Victoria Nuland and Hillary Clinton considered "chickenhawks"?

As a social democrat (and incidentally, an Army veteran), I'm not particularly a fan of any of them, but I don't think the label really applies here. The whole point of a chickenhawk, as opposed to just a regular war hawk, is that the person is a chicken- they've somehow successfully (usually actively) avoided military service themselves. Until relatively recently, women were generally unable to serve in the military (yes, I'm aware of women serving in things like the WAC and so forth, but still). When I think "chickenhawk", I think of loudly pro-war blowhards who are also draft dodgers like Cheney, Krauthammer, Kristol, etc, and especially the outrageous examples like Ted "Pants-shitter" Nugent or Rush "Anal Cyst" Limbaugh.

I guess I can understand, although I disagree with, the basis of the argument for why Clinton would be considered a hawk- because she voted in favor of the Iraq War? I hesitate to use that alone as a reason to label someone a chickenhawk though- Bush used manipulated intelligence and post-9/11 fears of being deemed "unpatriotic" to push through the Iraq authorization; additionally, Clinton has since stated she regrets making that vote (although I also understand that a lot of people, especially those who vehemently dislike her for whatever reason, do not accept this regret as genuine). --DarthBinky (talk) 15:29, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

There is no draft in the US anymore, so the "chickenhawk" "argument" became moot, unless you claim, that merely not volunteering to join the military and then endorsing military action is chickenhawkery, which would effectively mean, that one would either want to abolish the military or turn the country into a militarist regime (requiring politicians to participate in combat to fully participate in the political life of the country).--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 15:39, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, that's part of my problem with this article- it does seem to conflate "you didn't volunteer and now are strongly pro-war" with "you dodged the draft and actively avoided serving in Vietnam but now are strongly pro-war". I agree that there's a difference there.

But that still doesn't address my initial query- how are a few women who are currently or formerly in the Obama Administration, who aren't necessarily strongly hawkish and were largely unable to serve*, considered "chickenhawks"? (the * is acknowledgement that some women did in fact serve, as previously stated) --DarthBinky (talk) 16:01, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, they're warhawks, but not really chickenhawks. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 16:05, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

You all know that there is one country where the draft also applies to women, don't you? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 19:00, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Skimming a bit of the discussion, it now appears as if there has been considerable debate already as to the merits of the term and its applicability to several cases... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 19:03, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

There's actually a few countries that draft women (off the top of my head, Israel, North Korea, and Chad; and Norway recently legalized it, while Sweden is considering it), but that's not really relevant to this discussion. The whole point of the term is to point out the hypocrisy of successfully avoiding compulsory service during a war (namely Vietnam), only to be perfectly OK with sending other people to fight unnecessary wars (especially Iraq, and the current push to attack Iran). I agree with the previous discussions (which didn't cover the three specific women I asked about) that as the Vietnam generation continues to grow old and exit politics/die (it's been about 40 years since Vietnam ended, so those veterans are all in their 60s+ now), the term will probably fall out of use. But a lot of politicians/pundits of that generation are still going strong. --DarthBinky (talk) 22:21, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

In other words, pure ad hom.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 18:54, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't really understand fully what that whole argument was about (something about categories?), nor do I really care. --DarthBinky (talk) 23:54, 27 September 2015 (UTC)