There is a debate out there that stemmed from a chat room discussion from long ago. Entitled Can You Morally Support A War... The debate question seemed slightly worded in a way to ask if you could morally criticize a war if you never served.

In this debate I would like to explore the moral implication of supporting a war, but being unwilling to fight in it.

The military has standards and some one can be denied access to the military for any number of reasons, Too many tattoos or design, felonies, drug use, weight, flat feet, low test scores etc. However, though some of these things may be capable of disqualifying a person the military often offer waivers to allow people in.

There is a difference between those who try to get in and are told "no" and those who make no attempt to join. Why is the military suffering so much with recruiting. Whether liberal or conservative, where are the pro-war individual when their nation is in need. Are they merely content with sticking a "support the troops" bumper sticker on the car with no conviction to fight a war they feel is necessary.

Question for debate.


Is retired Army Gen. Barry McCaffrey correct in saying there is a problem in terms of America and the decaying sense of duty. Do those who stand behind the necessity of this current war, have a greater duty in serving in this war, if capable?

Is chickenhawk merely an ad hominem term or is it an accurate label to place upon those that would support a war, but not have the conviction to see the local recruiter. Basically saying, "I support someone dying for our freedom... just not me"

Is retired Army Gen. Barry McCaffrey correct in saying there is a problem in terms of America and the decaying sense of duty. Do those who stand behind the necessity of this current war, have a greater duty in serving in this war, if capable?
Yes, the gung-ho supporters of this war have a moral obligation to put their behinds where their mouths are (um... I suppose that's not an ideal metaphor... ) and volunteer for service. Certainly it is hypocritical to vociferously support a war but ask somebody else to risk their life in it in your own place.

Is chickenhawk merely an ad hominem term or is it an accurate label to place upon those that would support a war, but not have the conviction to see the local recruiter. Basically saying, "I support someone dying for our freedom... just not me"
The term "chickenhawk" is certainly rude, and so I would prefer that it weren't used. It is not ad hominem, because an ad hominem argument requires one to argue that the conclusion is wrong because the concluder is a bad person (a heavily used tactic on this site, I might add). It is an accurate description in that it captures the hypocrisy of the warmonger who won't himself fight. There are some particularly outspoken folks, such as Anne Coulter and Jonathan Goldberg, whose frequent rudeness makes them worthy of this rude term.

Is retired Army Gen. Barry McCaffrey correct in saying there is a problem in terms of America and the decaying sense of duty. Do those who stand behind the necessity of this current war, have a greater duty in serving in this war, if capable?

By "war" I think you mean the war on terrror, and that is an inaccurate way to describe what we are doing in Iraq and Afghanistan. We are trying to build nations in these two places, a very difficult task. If our leaders, most of whom have not fought in any war, had been honest with us in the first place, it's doubtful we would have taken on these two enormous tasks.

These leaders are too old to fight in wars. Some are near death anyway, so it doesn't matter. They had a duty to be honest with the American people, but failed. The American people apparently were okay with that, and so these leaders maintained power.

So duty was ignored by our leaders. It looks to me that the people were fooled, didn't mind being fooled, and now are acting like, well, people. Join and die or not join and live? It's a slam-dunk answer.

I'm thinking back to when Nixon resigned. Suddenly, nobody admitted to voting for him. It's human nature to deny a mistake. This makes it impossible to figure out who was gung-ho for the Iraq liberation, other than those public figures on record.

I'm also thinking back to when I was draft age during Vietnam. The returning vets were more convincing to me than anyone else, and none of them recommended the service as a draft-age man's best choice. Canada or college, those two choices were supported. I think that today, flipping burgers is a superior choice than joining the service for service-aged folks. Poor and alive is better than dead and, um, responsible? Heroic? Dutifull? Admirable? Whatever, dead is dead. Your options get severly curtailed.

Nobody believes we are protecting America from anything in Afghanistan or Iraq. One clear thing is that invasion didn't work for reducing terrorism. We went about this in the wrong way and for the wrong reasons.

I'm sorry. We nasty old liberals tried to warn y'all, but nobody was listening. What's the next step? The draft?

More likely, manditory service time for everyone, possibly up to the age of fifty. Or retirement age? Or everyone, period? This has happened in history when a country gets short on volunteers or young people. I think it's still a national policy in Israel, due to what? Terrorism? Which is perpetuated by national policy?

Yep, I see it coming. Mandatory service time for every US citizen. Maybe we'll include illegals from Mexico too. That would stem the tide at the border.

Is chickenhawk merely an ad hominem term or is it an accurate label to place upon those that would support a war, but not have the conviction to see the local recruiter. Basically saying, "I support someone dying for our freedom... just not me"

It's a nice way of describing our present leadership. I'd use stronger language in private company, and if there really is a hell, these people have their special corners waiting.

I don't know of anyone who alludes to regular citizens, like those who hang around here, as chickenhawks. If someone has, then we need full context quotations. The leadership consists of a bunch of $#!7 #*@6$.

Is chickenhawk merely an ad hominem term or is it an accurate label to place upon those that would support a war, but not have the conviction to see the local recruiter. Basically saying, "I support someone dying for our freedom... just not me"

It is a cheap debating trick and nothing more. Those who use the term are covering for an intellectual deficit. It's hardly a stretch for us all to know that many people aren't suited for the military....mentally or physically. To imply that anyone who supports our actions in Iraq and Afghanistan must march down to the local recruiters office is absurd. To imply that one who is a foreign policy hawk must serve or have served is absurd.

The chickenhawk term is hauled out of the attic every so often when the left needs to shore up it's base, conveniently forgetting that many of it's own numbers throughout history could logically find the term applied to them also.
The term chickenhawk defines someone who essentially supports a cause, yet does not have the wherewithal to employ themselves on the frontlines of whatever battle that they support.
I see many people who support the palestinian cause, who don't go to Israel; many who rail against genocide in Sudan, who don't buy a plane ticket or send aid. Are they not a sort of chickenhawks in their own right?

Support the fact that Iraqi's do not live under Hussein anymore, or that Afghani's are allowed to elect their own leaders instead of live under tyrannical mullahs, yet who do not enlist isn't hypocritical at all. It's is patently illogical to be expected to take absolutely no stance on any issue that you are not serving in the metaphorical foxhole for. When we try to qualify the argument with terms like gung-ho, vociferous, or label somebody a warmonger.........all we are doing is showing our intellectual backside....as if we can divine the scale of support or non-support of an individual to prop up a weak argument.

Just to clarify, I am not talking about our leadership as they are too old to serve in the military. I am talking about people that are eligible to meet the criteria to join our armed services today that agreed with many of the president decisions. I don't want this to be a stab at leadership. Some of us think the war, mainly Iraq where most deaths are occuring, was wrong, others believe it was the correct way to handle the situation and stand by the President.

It is a fact that recruitment is falling short, yet young adults who supported the need to go to war are going to colleges are beginning their careers to make big money $$$.

One can obviously see the correlation between the drop in recruitment and the war with Iraq and the steady rate of casualties incurring. Where once the military was just a place to get from some poor hole in society and get some financial benefits i.e. G.I Bill, the true design of the military and the consequences of that design is becoming clear. A military is made for war, this machine occassionaly requires blood and sacrifice.

It makes complete sense to me that someone who was merely using the military solely as a means to an end or who simply does not agree with the Iraq war would not enter the service at this time.

But where are the "pro-war" military qualified crowd at. Maybe they should not be called "pro-war", but those that thought this war a necessity for our safety. Why are they not streaming into recruiting offices asking "How may I help? How may I serve?"

The army and marines are coming up with all kinds of marketing plans to better "sell" concerned parents and young adults alike. As well as uping the monetary incentives. I don't think they should have to.

I would think there are plenty of people who see this war as necessary, and who should be willing to serve our nation to protect it rather than watch the daily news, while people are dying thinking "It sucks to be them"

Just to be clear I know "chickenhawk" is a term that usually applies to policy makers who never served, but I want to see peoples opinion if the shoe fits to our younger generation of people for a war, but not for serving in that war.

DTOM

Just saw you response we must have posted around the same time



Actually I think you are right in some of the things you are saying, but I deny that anything is "absurd."

In my post I said, "There is a difference between those who try to get in and are told "no" and those who make no attempt to join."

Do you see a difference in this. When you say "suited" for the military, what do you mean?? If some one is obese, or too short or too tall or missing a vital appendage or organ, or a host of other genuine physical defects, I can see what you mean by them not meeting physical requirements. If someone has some severe mental disorder, such as being bi-polar or severe depression that requires medication and make them ineligible for service, I can understand that as not being capable mentally to handle service life.

But I want to be clear on what you mean on by beings suited physically and mentally. I hope you do not mean....

Physically not suited:

"I hate running"

Mentally not suited:

"I'm scared I might die"

The recruiter or the MEPS Physician will be sure to tell anyone whether they are physically or mentally suited for the military, so why is it absurd that people who support war find out if they can do more than cheerlead and donate money in their cause.

I'm not suggesting that some old, crazy or handicap person go fight a war or they are cowards, but have we become so partisan that the notion that someone capable should fight in a war they believe is necessary become an absurd notion??

Again let me make it clear this goes for a liberal or conservative, this idea goes across party lines. You think this war is neccesary, go fight it. Plenty of men and women have died leaving fatherless and motherless homes, a family is no excuse. Plenty of people aren't able to take college courses while serving, college is no excuse. Plenty of people are afraid to die, fear is no excuse. You bring up an interesting point.



Again you make some good points here. But surely you see a difference from me sympathizing with the palestinian cause to become independent of Israel and be having a cause against Iraq. Saying that... If I thought the palestinian cause was a cause I should be fighting, but chose not I would agree it would seem I was a chicken hawk. Same as if I felt the sudan genocide is a place our troops should be.

It is equivalent to seeing a neighbor, but not quite a friend fighting. I may feel it is not my place to jump in to the squabble, though I may hope my neighbor come out on top, just because I slightly relate to him. Now what would make me look shady is if I started saying "Tyrone, our neighbor needs help, you go get between the two" Now I am suggesting there should be intervention.... just not from me.

The palestinian is a cause where I feel bad for the palestinians, but I do not recognize it as my cause.

Would you say that is a fair difference??

That's certainly a fair difference. And the term chickenhawk may indeed apply to individuals who proclaim from the heavens something to be their cause, yet do not place themselves in harms way to support it, but knowingly allow others to do the dirty work for them. The problem is, I see the term being bandied about and used against entire groups of people, by those that interject politics into every aspect of the current war. Support Bush, think that freeing Afghani's and Iraqi's was a good thing to do...
....and suddenly you're attacked by some as a chickenhawk, even though as you point out, seeing something as a good cause is not equal to seeing something as my cause.

Mandatory Service? Come on. That's beyond absurd. The ignorant left in this country has been throwing around this ridiculous talking point for years, and it's not going to happen. These are ironically the same people whom avoided Vietnam, even though we got into that mess predominantly because of their liberal Hero, JFK. Draft dodging was just peachy for Clinton, but during the most recent election, the left attempts to crucify Bush for missing a few drills w/ the Air National Guard... go figure. Neither mandatory service nor the guard will happen again during your (or my) lifetime.

Minimum wage is better than enlisting? Let me explain some points about military service that the bleeding heart (if not borderline cynical/apathetic) portion of our society refuses to acknowledge.
1. As a percentage, the vast majority of our military doesn't even see combat during war. For instance, how many Coast Guard or Navy sailors have been killed in the Iraqi war (lest we not forget that the Sailors of the USS Cole don't count here... that's a different topic altogether)?
2. How many min wage jobs provide for college educations? How many provide training for skilled labor positions?
3. How many min wage workers are killed in car accidents, etc while here in the states during war time? How do those figures compare to casualties during war?

No one believes that we're protecting anything in Afghanistan or Iraq? Well, sir, as much as I've tried not to be condescending in this post, pray tell why did GW get re-elected? Seriously. Please explain that one.

You lambast people like Ann Coulter for believing in Military action and not serving, but you negate the fact that even if she chose to enlist that she wouldn't see combat.

You refuse to see the fact that during our time in Afghanistan we utterly crushed and disabled the majority of the military/terrorist capacity of the very organization that attacked us on 9/11 (umm... the Taliban!). I know you weren't there, sir, so please take it from a military officer who was. As a Marine Reservist, in my utter lack of military experience, even I could see how we utterly disabled these terrorists, whom ordinarily might've used these financial resources to wage attacks on our (or other western) shores. Every engagement was like a prize fighter mauling a school child. They had no chance... and if you think that weapons and firefights don't cost terrorist organizations money, please find your way back to earth.

Frankly, if you'd like to call us CHICKENHAWKS, etc... please feel free. We really don't care. The bottom line is that if everyone thought the way that you'd have us to believe in your post, republicans wouldn't be winning elections...

Is retired Army Gen. Barry McCaffrey correct in saying there is a problem in terms of America and the decaying sense of duty.

I'm inclined to agree with McCaffrey, yet I'm not sure that this is necessarily a bad thing™ (it isn't necessarily a good thing™ either). As more and more of the US becomes privatized, there will be less and less of the national/social infrastructure to consider worth saving. Most folks want to serve the nation and not a corporation (or set of corporations).

In some sense, this reflects the classic tension between capitalism and democracy. Capitalist logic suggests that, if "duty" is on the decline, then increasing the economic incentive for pursuing this "duty" will solve it. Whereas, democracy logic suggests that belief in the justness of a cause will transform into "duty" (i.e. to grow the military). Of course, this suggests that the contrapositive is also true: lack of a sense "duty" implies that the cause is not just.

Do those who stand behind the necessity of this current war, have a greater duty in serving in this war, if capable?

Hmm... I don't believe they have a greater "duty" to serve, but the double standard is undeniable. To support a war without becoming directly involved is ...well... ironic. I tend to be a "put my money where my mouth is" type of person so even if I couldn't serve, I would figure out some way to be directly involved.

If the military is having recruitment problems, I'd suggest creating a "voluntary draft". That is, people could place their names on a list to be drafted only when necessary. These names would be chosen at random like the mandatory draft, however the list presumably would be composed of those people who support the war.

Is chickenhawk merely an ad hominem term or is it an accurate label to place upon those that would support a war, but not have the conviction to see the local recruiter. Basically saying, "I support someone dying for our freedom... just not me"

This is an ad hominem attack. It has no place in rational debate.

DTOM
Aside from the nice spin job you continuously seem to use... (I get your point some people feel we are freeing Iraqis and afghanistan, you're obviously one of them) I am slightly confused by what you are saying.

Now take my father as an example. He does not at all agree with President Bush's policies in Iraq, yet he voted for Bush due to Kerry's lack of a hard stance on Gay marriage. I would agree that in a case like this where someone generally supports Bush, but not in the specific case of Iraq, then this war is not their cause.

You seem to be saying something different however, correct me if I am wrong. I get the impression that you are saying that someone supporting President Bush's cause for war doesn't mean this war is their cause as well.

Is this correct??

If so, I disagree. The President has said this war is our nations cause and has thus placed our military troops to fight this war. To support President Bush's call for war is to support the idea that it is our nation's duty to be in the war. If a person is part of our nation and does believe it is our nations duty to go to war, then it becomes their cause as well as the Presidents.

Aevans

Why would you be called a chicken hawk when you just said you serve in the military?? The rest of your post just seemed as if you had to vent cause it was completely off topic.... feel better. I never mentioned anything about Republicans being chicken hawks. I didn't see anyone even imply it. Do you feel there is a natural association between the republican party and "chickenhawks". I don't feel this way at all. Look at Senator McCain farthest thing from a chickenhawk I've ever seen and he is a Republican.


Logophage



Why wouldn't you think they have a greater duty. Do you just believe duty is the wrong word. One group says "this is wrong thing to do" The other group says "this is the right thing to do" I would think the guys that think it is the right thing to have a greater duty than the people who think it is wrong or a third group somewhere in the middle.

Hell Aevans nice speech--I almost got misty
almost

Chicken hawk is definitely a very real and very appropriate term that rests deservedly on a great many heads. It is one thing to support the freeing of Afganis and Iraqis and hope to see tyrants removed. However the garbage that spills from the mouths of many who condemn others, question their patriotism or love of their country or give soap box speeches about support our president blindly or that you somehow hate our soldiers goes beyond the pale,
Especially when those who trumpet this garbage and attempts to breed hate and dissension NEVER EVER ONCE put it on the line themselves.
and as mentioned Aevans--you served so chicken hawk doesn't come your way. You believe in the cause and want to go--more power to you.
Lets take a look at some of the loudest voices of hypocrisy that condemn those who don't see the world their way.


None of them served. At any time--any war.
George Will
Bill O'Reilly
Paul Gigot
Bill Bennett
Pat Buchanan
Rush Limbaugh (4-F with a 'pilonidal cyst'
Michael Savage (aka Michael Alan Weiner) -
Bill Kristol
Sean Hannity
Ralph Reed
Michael Medved
Charlie Daniels
Ted Nugent
Eliot Abrams
Paul Wolfowitz
Richard Perle
Senator Richard Shelby
Senator Tim Hutchison R-AR -
Rep Christopher Cox R-CA
Representative Saxby Chambliss Georgia -
Phil Gramm four (?) student deferments
Karl Rove
Former Speaker Newt Gingrich -
VP Cheney - several deferments the last by marriage (in his own words "had other priorities than military service")
Att'y Gen John Ashcroft - ; received seven deferment
Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert
House Majority Leader Tom Delay
House Majority Whip Roy Blunt -
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist -
Majority Whip Mitch McConnell R-KY -
Rick Santorum R-PA
Former Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott

any of these names sound familiar?

They bang the tin drum of war every day all the while questioning the faith and integrity of those who either don't believe it was done for the right reasons or done in the right fashion.
and I am sorry Aevans but the Taliban is not Al Quaeda. Just like Saddam is not Bin Laden.

DTOM my intellectual backside is doing very nicely. I do not question--as I mentioned--those who want to see peace and justice done to tyrants. However do not ask me to believe that a great many of those in power who trumpet the wars we are in right now do it for any other reason than business advantage or politics.
I have never made any secret my support of Isolationism. Do business with other nations, go on vacation there--but stay out of their politics and wars. It leads only down a path of bigger and badder wars. I am firm in my belief that had we stayed out of WWI Hitler would have never come to power or even any prominence. Without our support to finish Germany off the rest of europe could never have maintained the stranglehold and sanctions and abuse of the German people that so mistreated them that the Nazi's seemed a good choice.
and I will state again that if we had not deposed the democratically elected leader of Iran and installed the oil interest friendly Shah--we would not have the terrorist problem we have today.


They capitalized on fear of another terrorist attack--anybody else notice how often that right after a positive moment for the Democrats a Terror 'Alert" seemed to follow--yet right after the election they suddenly stopped? . and I hate to bubbleburst but many of those I know who voted Bush for safety will not be voting Red the next time.

I'd like to offer some generalized comments here.

First, I like the notion of proportionality. We're talking about moral obligation here and the degree of moral obligation is proportional to the intensity of expressed support for the war. A fellow who sports a bumper sticker "Support our troops" has some tiny moral obligation to enlist. Somebody who frequents political discussions and vehemently declares the rightness of the war has a greater obligation. And a public figure who loudly declares his support for the war has an even greater obligation to enlist.

People who have such moral obligations who do not enlist are hypocrites to greater or lesser degree; hence the term "chickenhawk" is apropo to greater or lesser degree.

I'd like to repeat that the term is not itself an ad hominem argument, but it is rude. However, several of the responses I have in this topic are even ruder.

I think someone in another thread said it best (i forget who)...Saying that those who support the war should sign up to fight it is as ridiculous as saying those who do not support the war are un-american and should denounce their citizenship...the logic just doesnt fit.

The army is under civilian control and that was always its purpose. Those in the armed forces are respected and highly regarded, atleast by me. I see those brave souls as special people. They do what most can't. They put their lives on the line so that we may live free and without conflict. Not everyone has the ability to do this though some want to believe we can. It takes a special type of person.

With that being said, i do think that americans have a sense of duty. After 9/11...the armed forces were recruiting at record numbers. People who were retired or had finished their tours returned to fight. That IS a sense of duty and pride in ones country.

Furthermore...you must ask...if a person who fights the war must also be willing to fight it, why doesn't that apply to other issues? If you support increased welfare programs, should you pay more than those who do not support it?

Nice speech, but you seem to making a lot of false analogies and comparisons in order to "sound" balanced.

First why is it ridiculous(I can't believe that word keeps getting thrown around) to believe that if you believe that your country needs to fight a war, to go fight in the war with your country, if possible. Everyone knows that people die in wars. It is like saying... "American blood needs to be spilled, but you can bet one thing, it won't be mine." And then add... "but the soldiers that sacrifice.... great job, give that crying widow a round of applause"

The army is under civilian control and that was always its purpose. Those in the armed forces are respected and highly regarded, at least by me. I see those brave souls as special people. They do what most can't. They put their lives on the line so that we may live free and without conflict. Not everyone has the ability to do this though some want to believe we can. It takes a special type of person.

Even though we have military people who are conservative and on your side. I can't believe they can make sense of what you are saying. It does not take a special person to join the military. Those people you see serving and dying do not do what most can't, they do what most won't do. There is a huge difference and playing the military members up as so me outrageously elite group of people that have some kind of star quality that the average citizen can not maintain is truly... as you say... ridiculous.

If you meet the height and weight requirements... if you can run a mile and a 1/2 in 13:30, if you can do 50 crunches in 2 whole minutes, if you can do 3 measly pull-ups you've got what it takes to become a Marine. And Marines have the toughest physical tests. Oh and the mental challenge....
When I went to boot camp there was like 78 people in my receiving platoon. only about 8 of them got "dropped" only two of them completely quitted or "refused to train" the others either couldn't shoot so had to redo the rifle range or they were too fat and had to go to "Pork Chop Platoon" better know as PCP(it has an actual name that goes along with PCP) So eventually they graduate, at least I know 2 of them did. That's right boot camp had overweight people in it.... amazing how "special" they had to be. And that's back when there was no war and no drought. what type of special people do you think they let hold the title of Marine now. Well I can tell you this much toward the end of the month when "mission day" approaches you can bet there are some "very special" people that get waived in.

I don't like to speak from authority on this issue, but I'd hate to have someone read this board and actually think that they might not be good enough for the military....

"I support the war, I want to join, but I don't have what it takes..." Like I said before a recruiter would be able to tell you whether you are actually capable or not.



Uhhhhh.... 9/11 happened in 2001.... we're going to the summer of 2005. Recruiting is hurting.... now.



First your speaking in the hypothetical, I'm not. Recruiting is hurting and people who supported us going to war are not stepping up to the plate to go to war or at least to join the service.

Second let's start a system where we all pay the same amount of taxes we do now, but each of us gets to choose where our tax dollars go... I'm for it... start a debate on it.

droop224

Hey look, you have your own opinions, i have mine. Some peopl aren't built for the military. Not everyone can be a police officer, not everyone can be a fireman. These are people who are willing to put their lives on the line for others. Not everyone can do that and don't try to make me believe any old person can.

Should i make a topic that said every person against the war is un-american and should leave the US? How would you like to debate the validity of this statement? I bet we could all have fun questioning your patriotism as you have questioned a number of us.

If you see spin, please identify where you see it. I haven't called your opinions spin, but I can gladly accommodate you.
So let me see if I have your position down pat. If Bush supports a war in Iraq, and I support Bush and think that a war in Iraq is the right thing to do.....then unless I enlist, I'm a chickenhawk?
If you droop, oppose Bush and think the war was a mistake, then don't you have a moral obligation to protest, boycott and possibly go to jail to allow actions to follow your beliefs?

If everyone who thought that Bush's cause was just, marched down and enlisted, you would think that was great? Economy and infrastructure be damned? You accuse lederuvdapac of debating a hypothetical, yet you are guilty of the same.

Is retired Army Gen. Barry McCaffrey correct in saying there is a problem in terms of America and the decaying sense of duty. Do those who stand behind the necessity of this current war, have a greater duty in serving in this war, if capable?

There is an old saying about “putting your money where your mouth is.” The kicker here is the phrase if capable.

Theoretically, I’ like to see the Bush twins in Iraq, but I’m also realistic enough to realize this would create a nightmare for secret service. I can only imagine the scenarios if one or both of them were kidnapped. Still it would be nice if they enlisted and received a stateside assignment. They might even end up being the poster girls for military recruiters.

Is chickenhawk merely an ad hominem term or is it an accurate label to place upon those that would support a war, but not have the conviction to see the local recruiter. Basically saying, "I support someone dying for our freedom... just not me"

I have no idea where the term “chickenhawk" originated. The first instanced I recall was in Al Franken’s Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot and Other Observations, 1996.

In chapter 8—“Operation Chickenhawk” Franken contends that certain hawks, including Phil Gramm, George Will, Clarance Thomas, Dan Quayle and Pat Buchanan did not serve. He mentions the hypocrisy of hawks that didn’t serve criticizing Clinton who did not serve either. Buchanan may have been a hawk at the time, but to be fair he has been a constant critic of the war in Iraq.

All that said, I would suggest that “chickenheart” is fine for comedy, but not much of a tool for political analysis. With the recent episode involving Bill Maher, however, it seems some are determined to declare yet another war (in addition to the ones on drugs, poverty, etc.)—this one on those dangerous comics. Maybe we should start a war on war. That'd really give comedians some ammunition.



You seem full of invective these days aevans176—“the ignorant left,” indeed sir. Why all the sudden venom for the Kennedy family? Your command of history is also flawed. Driven by the domino theory, the Southeast Asia Treaty Organization was formed by the Eisenhower Administration. Kennedy sent advisors, but according to Presidential historian Robert Dallek, An Unfinished Life: John F. Kennedy 1917-1963 there is a good possibility that Kennedy would have started pulling out of Vietnam after the 1964 election. Lyndon B. Johnson ordered the first massive buildup of ground forces in August, 1965. For all his greatness as a domestic president, Vietnam diminished Johnson’s place in history.

Fine, go ahead, start the debate, but you'd have to contend with your own contradictions. In this debate I'd have god-like status and superhuman strength and moral character only a few could contend with because I was in the military....

In the other debate, I'd be some unpatriotic chicken livered scaredy cat cause I am against the war in Iraq...

Either way you are entitled to your opinion, but I am neither. But I am telling you what I am and what i did. I was not special. I was a below average student who almost dropped out of highschool who used the military to get out. The military used me and I used the military it was a fair trade, I may have gotten a little better of the deal due to the fact I still have all my body parts. If you want to believe that service members are special people it's because situations make them that way... they don't join that way.

Leder, I'll say this, I'm not questioning anyones patriotism. I am questioning their conviction. Like a man that cheats on his woman. Many may say he doesn't love her... but he does, he just lacks the conviction to do what is right by her, cause he can only think about himself.

DTOM



Sure, why not. Your spin really isn't a big deal nor was I making a big deal of it, Thus all the laughing faces. But it pertains to you not saying "war" and you saying things like. "Support bush freeing this or that group of people" It is spin, but not a big deal...



Well, that's part of the debate. I feel close to that, but not exactly. If you supoort Bush in regards to Iraq but are unable to join the service then you are not a chickenhawk, because it wasn't due to lack of conviction it was due to lack of opportunity that you did not serve.



Not really, your stretching a little bit. If everyone capable of joining who supported Bush's war were to go down to the recruiter here is what would happen.
Recruiters would meet their monthly goals, be able to go home for a change and see their wife and kids, they wouldn't have to pull their hair out on a reluctant kid and reluctant parents to meet their quota. Oh and each branch can only take so many so the recruiter will only have to say... try again next month johnny. The economy would remain intact, I promise.

At first I thought you had a good point here, but on further reflection I realize that there is a tricky distinction. We all argue about how the tax dollars should be spent, but we all pay our fair (well, we like to think it's fair) share of the taxes. And we don't hold that those who pay more taxes should have a larger voice in the political debate. If Joe Unemployed argues vehemently for spending more on parks, we don't ask him to directly fund the parks, we simply expect him to pay his fair share of the tax burden.

But it gets much messier with military service. It's not as if I can "pay my fair share" of military service by serving for 22.3 days, or whatever the "duty calculator" decrees. You're either in or you're out. Which means that military service falls disproportionately on a subset of the population. Moreover, most people agree that military service is not what they'd rather be doing. Not many people join the military for the sheer joy of it. They do it out of a sense of duty, out of patriotism, or whatever, but we all recognize that military personnel are making a sacrifice that benefits all of society.

Now, getting back to Joe Unemployed, if he made a big stink about more money for parks, then it's fair of us to ask him to sit on the Parks and Recreation Board to figure out how to spend the money -- and in fact, there is a tradition in this country that the most vociferous proponents of a policy should in some way serve in a volunteer capacity to help that policy along, where possible.

I think that the same reasoning applies here. The more vociferously you plump for war, the greater your obligation to serve -- to the degree possible by your physical state.

Certainly when we turn the situation around, the moral issues leap out clearly. Consider a hawk who vigorously supports a war that requires so many personnel that a draft is instituted, and some poor slob who opposed the war gets drafted and has to serve while the warmonger sits at home. That's clearly an injustice.

The first use of the term "Chickenhawk" that I can recall was back in the 1960's during the national debate over Vietnam. Normally it was applied to those who were vocal in support for the war but weren't exactly beating a path down to the local recruiting office. It was also applied to political leaders who weren't sending their own children to those offices either. LBJ was referenced in that way right up until his son-in-law, a Marine infantry officer named Charles Robb did a tour in nam and served with distinction. He of course has continued to serve with distinction as a Governor and Senator from Virginia.

Mainly though, the term in those days was used by the anti-war crowd to describe people of draft age who supported the war and looked for ways to avoid it themselves. The anti-war folks had a point (besides the one on their head ). It did seem to me that it was hypocritical at the least and downright cowardly at the most for someone to think a war was worth the lives of their friends, but not their own life. That's why I turned down an appointment to West Point and instead signed up for an all-expense paid tour of hell. All things considered, probably not the brightest thing I've ever done.

But it does seem to me that all this nonsense is kind of a no-win situation. If you don't sign up to fight, you're a chicken, if you do, you're a war-monger. I prefer to think of it as just being an American and doing what one thinks is the right thing to do.

Is retired Army Gen. Barry McCaffrey correct in saying there is a problem in terms of America and the decaying sense of duty. Do those who stand behind the necessity of this current war, have a greater duty in serving in this war, if capable?

I think he may be right in terms of a sense of duty. Back during Vietnam, even those stridently against the war still sought to serve in some way. Not by joining the military, but things like the Peace Corps where they too put their money where their mouth was and pro-actively participated in shaping America in the image they desired. It just doesn't seem like there's as much of that going on as there used to be.

Yes, I think "duty" is the wrong word. However, I do believe that someone, who agrees with the war and who can serve in the military while the military is not meeting its recruitment goals, does compromise his/her moral beliefs by not signing up for military service. The contradiction of principle seems undeniable to me. I believe that very few people would call someone a "war-monger" if s/he chose to follow their principles. And even if they did, who cares? I applaud those who are principled enough to sign up for service.

Is retired Army Gen. Barry McCaffrey correct in saying there is a problem in terms of America and the decaying sense of duty?

Decaying as compared to when? The drop in the army's recruiting power doesn't neccessarily mean we have decaying sense of duty, it could merely exemplify that it is harder to recruit troops during war time, then it is when it is peace time.

Do those who stand behind the necessity of this current war, have a greater duty in serving in this war, if capable?

I wouldn't say that they are being morally unjust if they don't fight, but I would say that (it being their cause), it makes more sense for them to fight, then it makes for others to fight.

Let me employ a case example here:

Frelt is a teacher, he makes a modest middle class salary, and he lives in America. Harry is a banana picker in South America. He and his friends do not make enough money to feed themselves adequately. Now it makes moral sense for Frelt, to give up the majority of his salary, so that he can save Harry (and about a hundred of Harry's friends) from dieing of malnutrition. In essence, to do so, would to act selflessly for the good of humanity. If Frelt doesn't decide to this, then he has no right to criticize other people for not doing selfless acts such as joining the military, because to do so would be hypocritical.

This is not the correct analogy to make here. The analogy would work only if Frelt claimed that someone should give up the majority of her/his salary in order to feed those folks starving in another nation. If this were added to your analogy, then I would agree that Frelt would be in an ethical inconsistency. However, without this qualifier, it does not map to the question for debate.

This is quite possibly the most illogical comparison I have ever come across in my life, leder - and you've used it twice. If you want a real parallel, try this: Saying that those who support the war should sign up to fight it is as ridiculous as saying those who do not support the war should not sign up to fight it. Hmmn... doesn't sound quite so ridiculous now, does it?

Neither really applies here. Signing up for a volunteer army is a personal choice, period. And most of those currently serving were doing so before we illegally invaded Iraq. I certainly can't agree with Gen. McCaffrey that there is a decaying sense of duty in the US in relation to declining enlistment figures. To my mind, refusing to sign up to fight in an illegal war can be seen as admirably demonstrating one's duty to one's country by conscionably honoring the treaties, conventions, and charters to which that country subscribes. Similarly, those already enlisted who are seeing combat are doing their duty to their brothers and sisters in arms, whether they support the unjustified actions of their superiors or not.

I don't think "chickenhawk" is necessarily appropriate for describing those who ardently advocate participating in this illegal war while refusing to lay their own lives on the line for its unjustified ends, should they be able - but "rank hypocrite" would certainly apply. Ordinarily, this would not be my opinion. In times of peace - or times of warfare that is necessary to defend the territorial US or protect its allies - I would feel very differently. But this is an illegal, unjustified war of aggression. And I firmly believe that those - and only those - who support acts of aggression should be the ones dying in Iraq.

A few weeks ago, Katha Pollitt published a column in The Nation called "Practice What You Preach". In it, she humorously suggested that we should "make everyone respond, in writing, to a detailed questionnaire on hot-button 'values issues' and then be legally compelled to live by the answers they give." Should one oppose federally-funded stem-cell research, one would get an appropriate tax cut - but would never be allowed to avail of any cures arising from such research, for example; those opposing sex education could pull their kids from those classes and get another tax break - but, should their teenage daughter become pregnant, they would be responsible for supporting and raising the child for the first eighteen years of its life.

This was partially based on the fact that Louisiana, Arkansas, and Arizona all have the option of "covenant marriage" which allows only a select few grounds for divorce, such as infidelity. Despite massive vocal support from the religious right and scores of right-wing preachers and pundits, fewer than 2% of couples in those states have opted for the more restrictive form of marriage. "That," according to Pollitt, "tells us something important about the way people want to live as opposed to the way they think other people should live, and what people choose when they have to live with the results." I would suggest that the same thing applies to support for illegal wars of aggression.

I think a similar proposal could work here. You advocate illegal warfare? Fine. Wars of aggression should only be fought by those who sign up for them, supplemented by a draft of those who vote in favor of them - or, should they be over thirty-five, a draft of their children. Were that the case, I suspect a lot more people would "fail in their duty" to participate in war crime - and those who didn't would at least be putting their money where their substantial mouths are.

Well i am happy it was me and not someone else. But anyway, you're missing what i am saying. I am saying that... you telling me that i should sign up for the military because i support the war is as ridiculous as i telling you to leave the US because you lack of support for the war is un-american. The comparison is not in the actual actions of signing up or leaving the country...but in you or me telling me/you to do something based on our perceptions of my/your views.



Did you call up your Democratic representatives in both houses of Congress that voted for this "illegal" war and ask them to fight?



Luckily it doesnt matter what you think because thats not how our government or military is set up.

No. I didn't ask my Republican representatives to do so either. But I did write them in detail telling them why I felt they shouldn't support the resolutions authorizing the use of military force in Iraq. Unfortunately, they believed President Bush when he said that such a use of force would only be employed if it were vital to the defense of the United States. Democrats and Republicans were equally stupid on that score.


Gee, really? I thought ironic suggestions by any individual citizen immediately became the law of the land. I am so disappointed now.

But apart from your presidential-sounding "who cares what you think?", do you think such an idea has merit? Come on, leder, we could get a grassroots movement started here.

I too have to go with the degree of support this hypothetical person "wants" to go to war- I have seen folks say they thought GW had no choice, or that the US had no choice, it was going to happen sooner or later, might as well be sooner etc etc- they "support" the war with some regret- those folks I may believe are wrong, but not really Chickenhawks- now, those in goverment that recieved deferment after deferment or special treatement while in the military (Bush, Cheney, Ashcroft, most of the GW regime) I think of as chickenhawks and have no respect for them whatsoever.

Those that have already served or are serving, I may think they are wrong, but I would never question thier convictions or character.

I do know a fairly large amount of folks in aquaintence though that I routinely refer to as "chickenhawks"- they are all about "bombing them into the stone age" and lot's of tough talk- but will never enlist themselves, even though they are capable of doing so. In fact, I usally make a point of trying my best to use the term to thier face often when they go off on this war tangent- especially considering everyone that is in my family in Iraq were enlisted prior to GWs policies and had no idea that they would be getting this guy for a CNC. Only the officer in my family supports Bush (always seems to be that way ) and the rest are just waiting to get out, some being "stop loss'd" and not being allowed to get out. That is why it makes my blood boil when I hear these gung-ho types and thier refusal to go relieve my family members!

Oh Wertz, didn't you here? US policies pay off in global security

It turns out that the world is becoming more democratic and that we are fighting terrorists more effectively. I'd say that the stupidity might pay off.



I must really have an affect on you being i bring out so much emotion. First my statements boggle your mind and then i disappoint you. I can only imagine what will happen next.



Oh Wertz, you know i care about what you think.

Kididng aside, i don't think your ironic idea has merit. Everyone has a job to do for this to work. "This" being society. If everyone got up and left we would break down. Everyone has to do their part its jsut that some people have larger roles than others. You have factory workers who make weapons and vehicles. You have people who provide analysis for the troops. You have people who make sure the soldiers have some sort of luxuries while overseas. You have people who donate money or goods. There are ways to help the soldiers and support them without being a "chickenhawk."

Personally, i am getting great interest in the field of counterterrorist intelligence/analyst. By pursuing this line of work, i feel i would be putting my skills to best use and also protecting american lives. Now hypothetically, if a draft ever did occur, yes i would definately go and serve. I couldn't live with myself if i ran and hid. But thats me. Everyone is different.

We have a volunteer army because we are a democracy. Because people have to want to fight for freedom in order to sustain it.

It's a little early to be declaring victory in the war on terror. There are some good signs. There are also some bad signs. We have a topic on the prospects for restoring democracy to Iraq. We can discuss it there.

Leder



But what we are talking about are the people who want to fight for freedom, but don't actually want to fight for freedom.



Your comparison is way off base. If I told you that by supporting President Bush you are a war-monger and should leave this country it would correctly compare to you telling somene that they are against the war, therefore un-american and should leave the country. These things compare to each other.

You're trying to compare in a way that, I admit, baffles me. I'm not saying anyone has to go to the military. I am not saying they are unpatriotic for not joining the military. But we have a situation where recruiting has become tougher, more difficult, to the point that recruiting stations are missing their recruiting goals. Now your telling me that criticizing those that would merely take a back seat while some one else is fighting the fight that they believe in is comparable to calling some one out for not doing something the don't believe in... can you walk me through this logic and point out some correlations along the way.



There is no requirement for everyone to get up and leave to anywhere. You're the second one to word it like that, though nobody is suggesting that this should happen. A bit of a strawman ... maybe

Wertz


Truthfully, while i agree that the war was illegal, I don't think it pertains to the drop in recruitment at all. I think it is war itself that has scared of the percentage of people who say the military as a form of financial aid. Te realization of possible death is what I think deters many. Whether it is illegal war as you repeat or a war of freedom as DTOM repeats the one thing it is ... is war.

And all of a sudden, the GI Bill just doesn't seem worth it anymore...

This is terribly easy. Most recruits are young, looking to get out of a dead end town or for college funds, not looking to get their blown off in the Middle East.
Weight this: hmm....
I think given the circumstances they'd rather stay home, and they are.

And yes, it is a 'you fight for me, Ill vote for Bush, support the troops but Im not going' mentality, alot of talk. Actually who knows if these youngsters even vote. It's old men who choose to do these things, not the 18 year olds of our nation. I support 100% their unwillingness to engage in such ludicrousness and hypocrisy as bombing people into freedom and wasting their lives as pawns of the government.

I do think that those people saavy enough to verbally pound the war pavement everyday (especially on this board) should put their bodies where their mouth is and go fight or stop and realize what they are saying and the lives they are sacrificing while they are yakking away about the greatness of war.

Please, do NOT let us risk a draft of the unwilling from low recruitment when there are so many who support our invasion and continued battle for mid-east democracy. They should go first, willingly.

This is not the correct analogy to make here. The analogy would work only if Frelt claimed that someone should give up the majority of her/his salary in order to feed those folks starving in another nation. If this were added to your analogy, then I would agree that Frelt would be in an ethical inconsistency. However, without this qualifier, it does not map to the question for debate.

If I am unwilling to be a selfless person, then I have no right to expect selflessness from anyone else. Joining the army is a selfless act, and donating most of your salary to charity is selfless act. Therefore they are one in the same.

I think that this approach is too black and white. Avoiding stepping on an ant is a selfless act, but I wouldn't equate it with donating most of your salary to charity. There are shades of grey here.

So in your opinion which action is more selfless?

Living in self imposed poverty, or risking your life on foreign soil?

Allow me to step into the fray here. True to my MO I'll get straight to the point.

Calling people "chickenhawk" or even hypocrite for not fighting in a war they support as a policy decision is pitiful.

A person unfamiliar with the many logical frailties that plague humanity could easily be baffled by the sheer childishness of such a tactic.

I think the fact that many people who use it are so far removed from there playground years as to not recognize the striking similarities between calling someone a "chickenhawk" and a "scardycat pansy".

As a youth who remembers those days allow me to inform you that there is no real difference.

If were looking for a useful analogy,

I've got one for you. It's like complaining that people who support more peaceful relations with the Arab world don't go out an become diplomats.

The fact is the use of such terminology is directly contrary to the heart and soul of democracy.

When the trash collector can't speak on education reform...

When the teacher cannot speak out on health reform...

When the physician cannot speak out on national security....

We have no democracy.

A logical person could almost be brought to tears hearing some of the arguments used to support namecalling.

Those supporting the war but not offering up their children or themselves as soldiers are not so much chickenhawks as "me too" people who ride the wave of popularity or get on the bandwagon, if you will, until the popular thing is no longer popular.

Talk IS cheap when it comes to supporting the war, and elevating to the skies the "sacrifices our brave men and women make..." There are many who are sincere, but I suspect that there are far more who are paying lip service to the cause. Red, white and blue bunting, cutsie teddy bears with little flags, and bumper stickers do not a supporter make. And notice, too, how many of those flag decals have faded on the cars, and how many of those flags still whipping in the wind have become frayed and torn.

You are right, turnea, that name-calling is immature. But it is also an altogether human trait for those who have been capriciously labeled bleeding hearts, crazy liberals, or even supporters of terrorism because they opposed the war, to respond in kind.

I have opposed the war from the get-go, but my son, who stated that he needed extra income to support his family, was willing to go. He served in Kuwait and got back after a year. I personally cannot understand going into harm's way ostensibly to support my family; I am not a soldier. I respected his choice, though.

It would be nice, however, if so many of these brave talkers (is that better than chickenhawk?) put themselves where their mouths are, especially in light of the enlistment crisis. Barring that, why don't we just stop the war?

Or perhaps (and I admit I may be stepping out on a limb here) they are normal people with their own interests and talents who don't feel the need to drop everything and change professions whenever they support a policy.

I support better education so forget engineering I'd better become a teacher...

Enough with the armchair psychology...


"Talk" is essential to our democracy.

Just because a person believes a foreign policy decision is right does not make it reasonable to expect them to implement it personally.

This is just demonization of people who disagree with a certain view point as cowards.



..but you do know that just because a person chooses to resort to immature behavior doesn't mean you have to respond in kind.


Do you expect everyone who opposes the war to board a plan to Iraq and lie in front of the tanks?

It's the same logic at work here...

Alright how fun would this be.

Calling people "chickenhawk" or even hypocrite for not fighting in a war they support as a policy decision is pitiful.

"Policy decision??" Is that some secret code or something?? "I don't support the war, as a war, only as a 'policy decision.'" People who support the war, wanted the war to happen.

And and pitiful is such a strong word, but hey we all have our opinions. Support can have so many meanings, but to support this war is to support sending fellow Americans to a foreign country to kill and sometimes be killed. Now, as a result there are people who no longer want to join the military, to the point that the military is missing its recruitment goals. The reason they are missing recruitment goals is because of the war. In other words(which is a key difference from your comparison) the military needs more people to join.

Now the group of people that supported the President in his decision to go to war are the people that wanted the war to happen. They are the people that caused the problem with recruitment via their desire for war. Now is it pitiful to think that someone who wants a war to alleviate the problem that occurred due to that desire. Is it pitiful to point out the lack of conviction for someone who only wishes other people to fight for their causes??

Let me give you some really good example of pitiful...

If I had a fire at my house with no fireman around and my daughter was trapped inside I wouldn't go to my my neighbors house and say "Hey, would you mind risking your life to save my daughter" Would agree that is pitiful? Now, if I am incapable of doing so, it's not so pitiful.



No I recognize it, but it doesn't make it any less truthful. Let me paint picture.

Now let's say a kid, we'll call him Billy, wants to see a tack be put on a teacher's chair. He thinks it would be hilarious to see, but Billy know there may be some consequences for doing this. Doesn't matter he still wants to see it so he taps his friend, Johnny, on the shoulder. "Johnny, put this tack on Mrs. Johnson's chair" Johnny replies, "I don' t want to" Billy says, "come on it will be fun to see her face" But Johnny says he doesn't think it will be right or funny so he won't do it. Billy resorts to calling Johnny childish names like "scardycat pansy"

In this scenario I think it would be completely wrong for Billy to call Johnny scared, because Johnny doesn't want to see the action done. However, this scenario does not match the current parameters of the debate. You see the people who want the war are Billy not Johnny. They are the ones that thought it would be "good" to go to war with Iraq.

Now lets say the story ends like this...

Johnny get fed up with the name calling and the insistence that a tack needs to be placed on the chair of Mrs Johnson. He looks at Billy and says "If you want it done so bad why don't you do it." Billy declines. Johnny smiles and says, "like I thought, your a 'scardycat pansy'"

I think there is a lot more truth in Johnny's name calling rather than Billy's. Would anyone disagree?? Billy wants it done but Billy doesn't want to step to the plate to get it done. Where as Johnny never wanted it done in the first place. Now maybe by today's standard Billy isn't the name Johnny called him. Maybe by todays standard Billy in his quest to get others to do the dirty work is simply being presidential.



You've got a point... Is there a shortage of people signing up to be diplomats?? No??? Then your point is not relevant.


What about logical people that disagree with you are they not logical

Does the name calling in this instance have merit??? There is a such thing as acting cowardly, Just because it is rude to call some one a coward it doesn't mean no one can act that way. Same with chickenhawk, I believe. It is a rude term, but can it ever be applicable??

I hardly see how playing at ignorance is constructive. Both the words "policy" and "decision" are short, commonly used terms. The meaning of the phrase then should be perfectly clear.



Yes.

Bogus analogy. In our situation there are, indeed, firemen around.


Sure, unless they support a inherently illogical position like this one.

Whether or not there is a shortage (and there is, especially those familiar with Arabic so start studying) is not the point of the metaphor.

There a nursing shortage droop should every fair minded american who supports readily available healthcare sign up for nursing school?

Yes, in very individual circumstances to persons you know personally. Otherwise guessing at their motivations is pointless.

Of course there is a problem with America's sense of duty. Look out the window while driving and what kind of bumper stickers do you see? Anti-war, anti-American, anti-Bush stickers that reflect the beliefs of the person driving. To be anti-war, for example, is to be against fighting... so therefore their sense of duty is null. Whereas people who support the war have no more obligation to serve this war than those who do not. Not only are we American's we are human-beings. Human's have a responsibility to better the world for their children, all slaughter and mistakes of the war aside is the world any worse now than pre-Hussein's capture?

Shortly the answer is no, people should not be preferred over the other to serve. My sister supports the war, my cousin does not; so does that mean my sister should be sent to the front to fight because she supports it and my cousin has a sense of duty problem and is unpatriotic?

If someone like the General wishes to express his discontent about America that is his right to freedom of speech. If someone wishes to not support the war and not wish to enlist in being shot at by the quote un-quote enemy that is their option. If someone wishes to support the war but not enlist that too is their choice. If someone wishes to sign up and join the armed forces wonderful for them.

The fact of the matter is we live in a free nation where all people can live to have their opinions heard. However opinions are like noses: everyone has one. The actions to fight or not behind the person's opinion are what makes people supporters or not. Yet should one be more pressured into active duty than the other? Certainly not.

Is that all that's stopping you from agreeing with me. If so then take a look at my initial post. Both the Army and Marines have been missing their recruitment goals. The only way they will miss those goals if not enough "firemen" are available. My analogy is dead on. The group in question is asking other people to go fight for their beliefs. You can not avoid this simple truth, no matter how much you call it illogical. There is a need for people to raise their right hand as evidenced by such a decline in recruitment that we are seeing service branches missing their mission. But instead of going to save a country that they feel needed to be saved through war, this group of people step back and allow for these vacant slots to be unfilled. And then they may something like Leder said,



Basically this group that wanted the war and support, respect and love the troops will serve if they are told, but not if asked. Their only support truly comes in the form of lip service... cheers and applause



Your steady calling a certain position illogical, but let's look at what you are saying.

The analogy you pre